Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

Zerbini Blewitt

What are your memories of the epidemic of moving statues in the Summer of 1985 or similar experiences of any religious apparitions?

Btw, that summer was one of the most miserable, overcast, sunless, rain sodden summers of all time.

I did, in fact, set off for Ballinspittle, Co Cork one fateful Sunday afternoon as part of a family outing. The fevered excitement in the country at the time was palpaple. The whole thing was hilarious in my reminicing of it – yet strangely compelling.

And even as a 16 year old (who was even then at what I now know to be a 6.9 on Dawkins 1 to 7 scale of atheism) this was, without doubt an exciting adventure. I was tickled pink anticipating my parents (who were staunch catholics) likely reaction.

And yes, I did see the statue in Ballinspittle move….tee hee!!! No, seriously.

To explain: We (a crowd of maybe 200-300) were all gazing intently at the statue for ages, probably hours from around 4pm. I saw precisely zero movement of the statue in that time interval.

I was listening to people around me (even including N. American tourists) who were convinced they were seeing various kinds of movement during the time I saw no movement.

The evening wore on. Time passed. The crows began returning home.

Then as dusk arrived, the adjacent public street light switched itself on…..and hey presto, the statue started moving :eek:

But it wasn’t gentle, graceful rhythmic, swaying that one would hope a religious apparition would be. Instead, it appeared to me to be insanely vibrating at say 500bpm – or like a ghostly image in very bad reception on now defunct analog TV broadcasting.

It was immediately obvious to me that what I was seeing was a trick of the street light at that time of dusk combined with the flaws in human eyesight (while excellent evolution – isn’t perfect). I did say this out loud to a family member (and those around who could hear me) but was ignored.

Ironically, at the end of the day no other of my staunch Catholic family members seemed to see the statue move (beyond vague, ambivalent comments).

A few weeks later we went to Manister, Co Limerick after reports of another moving statue in that village. There were big crowds there too that night but, as for the statue – alas, nothing moving for me (and no adjacent street light there either, hmmmm!).

So, have you any similar experience or insight from the Summer of 1985 or Knock, Fatima, Medjugorge etc.

kelly1

Chasing apparitions is just silly and shows a lack of faith.

magicbastarder

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

So, have you any similar experience or insight from the Summer of 1985 or Knock, Fatima, Medjugorge etc.

nope; all i can really remember of mass religious gatherings is going to the phoenix park when i was three for JPII, and the only memory i have from it is one of a giant lollipop.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Chasing apparitions is just silly and shows a lack of faith.

Apparitions?
I'm going to 'define' them as 'true and undeniable manifestations of the infinite Triune God'. There we go.

Are you denying that these were the true and undeniable manifestations of the infinite infinite Triune God?

Oh, you of little true faith!

GritBiscuit

kelly1 wrote: »

Chasing apparitions is just silly and shows a lack of faith.

Like a kinda pietic pokemon go...

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Apparitions?
I'm going to 'define' them as 'true and undeniable manifestations of the infinite Triune God'. There we go.

Are you denying that these were the true and undeniable manifestations of the infinite infinite Triune God?

Oh, you of little true faith!

Ha ha, bleedin' ha.

Samaris

Never seen a statue move, but we had a few in school (particularly the seven foot Bleeding Heart Jesus) that you wouldn't be surprised to have suddenly appear behind you like a Weeping Angel statue.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Oh, you of little true faith!

Can't help you with moving statues, but this was the only true faith for me in the 80s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfI1S0PKJR8

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

Chasing apparitions is just silly and shows a lack of faith.

Weren't you holding up Lourdes as an example of a real miracle.
And wasn't the reason Lourdes is magic because of an apparition?

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Weren't you holding up Lourdes as an example of a real miracle.
And wasn't the reason Lourdes is magic because of an apparition?

Note the word "chasing". People desperately in need of a cure is a different matter. Lourdes is in a way magical, not magic. Lourdes had a very profound impact on my life and the reason I espouse Christianity as the truth.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

Note the word "chasing". People desperately in need of a cure is a different matter. Lourdes is in a way magical, not magic. Lourdes had a very profound impact on my life and the reason I espouse Christianity as the truth.

So all other apparitions are completely fake then?
But the one at Lourdes is definitely real?
How do you know this?

Also, magic is magic. Magic is not real. There are no miracles at Lourdes.

looksee

I think anyone can feel that a place is 'magical' without having the least belief in magic.

Samaris

I'd say the amount of fervent belief you might feel around you in being in a place that everyone there feels intensely is holy might have an impact on anyone remotely impressionable.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

So all other apparitions are completely fake then?
But the one at Lourdes is definitely real?
How do you know this?

Seems you're trying to prove you're right and appear to have no interest in understanding my position. You assume far too much. Nobody is going to make any progress towards common understanding if we only try to win arguments and score points.

Some people go to Lourdes in the hope of being cured and I believe many have been. Others chase moving statues because they "seek signs and wonders" because their faith is weak. There's a difference.

King Mob wrote: »

There are no miracles at Lourdes.

That settles that (oh omniscient one)!

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Some people go to Lourdes in the hope of being cured and I believe many have been.

Quite probably true, but then many people have been cured by various placebos in different guises. While not exactly free of woo itself, Herbert Benson's The Relaxation response makes for an interesting read on this one. I know a number of people would similarly claim the healing powers of a homeopathic remedy they've taken and swear by homeopathy as a result. My stock response to this is asking whether they'd consider using a homeopathic contraceptive. Faith healing is pretty much the same, in cases where the person basically needs to be reassured and given time and space to let the body heal itself it works well. If it is used in place of another necessary intervention such as chemo for example, it is clearly disastrous. As for Lourdes, according to the Guardian apparently miracles aren't what they used to be.

kelly1

...miracles aren't what they used to be.

You could say faith isn't what it used to be. Jesus prophesied this:

Luke 18:8 - However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

This forum bears this out.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

Some people go to Lourdes in the hope of being cured and I believe many have been.

Why do you believe this? What convinced you beyond doubt that this happens?
How do you know that you can't possibly be wrong?

Can you point to an example that you can show for a fact was a miracle?

kelly1 wrote: »

Others chase moving statues because they "seek signs and wonders" because their faith is weak. There's a difference.

Not really. Again, the only reason people think that Lourdes is special is because of the claimed apparitions there.

And now you are contradicting yourself again because you claimed that your faith was partly based on the "wonders" that happen at Lourdes.

What's the difference?
How do you know which are real miracles and apparitions and which are fake?

kelly1 wrote: »

That settles that (oh omniscient one)!

You're welcome to try and show your claim is true. But until then, I'm not going to believe something where there is no proof.

Lourdes has been investigated, it has been found wanting.
Even taking the church's investigation, the number of what they believe is unexplained (not even miraculous) cure is far far less than the rate of spontaneous remission in many diseases.

And even then, the idea of Lourdes does not fit with the idea of God as you believe it.
Selectively curing people based on unknown criteria following no rhyme or reasons and only if they take the time and expense to go to a certain spot is cruel and despicable for a being that could just as easily cure all those people at home. Or he could cure all disease regardless of his own rules...

Again, why does god not cure amputees? Is he unable or unwilling?

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you believe this? What convinced you beyond doubt that this happens?
How do you know that you can't possibly be wrong?

Did it ever occur to you that you might, in general, be taking your skepticism a bit too far?

Is there any doubt in your mind that other minds exist, for example? How do you actually know other minds exist?

King Mob wrote: »

Can you point to an example that you can show for a fact was a miracle?

No, I can't. Think of what I have to do to convince myself beyond all reasonable doubt. I'd have to travel to Lourdes and have a meeting with the doctors who looked after the patients, and meet with those who claimed to be cured etc. And even then, I would have no absolute proof. I would have to make a judgement based on probability/plausibility.

King Mob wrote: »

And now you are contradicting yourself again because you claimed that your faith was partly based on the "wonders" that happen at Lourdes.

I am saying that my complete (re)conversion to Christianity (Catholic) was for me (and my wife) a miracle of sorts. I was into New Age at the time and if I'd met a priest on the street, I probably wouldn't have given him the time of day. It's a long story but it had a very profound impact on my world. While I was there, I was trying to convince a priest that reincarnation was true!

Again, why does god not cure amputees? Is he unable or unwilling?

I've attempted to answer this already. If God did do that, and I'm sure he could since he created the universe, then it would be a miracle beyond any doubt, incontrovertible. But this would interfere with God's plan whereby he wants to love him, but doesn't force us. It would be like a lesser version of Jesus appearing in the sky.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

You could say faith isn't what it used to be.

Progress of sorts I suppose. It still isn't quite where it should either though, a thing of personal choice rather than something foisted on our children by a bizarre educational system regardless of our own wishes.

gctest50

kelly1 wrote: »

You could say faith isn't what it used to be. Jesus prophesied this:

Luke 18:8 - However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

This forum bears this out.

he'll be too busy with the snag list of all the half assed jobs his oul lad did

kids with bone cancer n all that

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that you might, in general, be taking your skepticism a bit too far?

I do not consider not believing something claimed by some randomer on the internet quoting dubious sources for extraordinary claims to be too skeptical.

You have not provided anything even remotely convincing or anything that survives cursory skepticism.

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I can't. Think of what I have to do to convince myself beyond all reasonable doubt. I'd have to travel to Lourdes and have a meeting with the doctors who looked after the patients, and meet with those who claimed to be cured etc. And even then, I would have no absolute proof. I would have to make a judgement based on probability/plausibility.

So then why do you believe these miracles are real?

kelly1 wrote: »

I am saying that my complete (re)conversion to Christianity (Catholic) was for me (and my wife) a miracle of sorts. I was into New Age at the time and if I'd met a priest on the street, I probably wouldn't have given him the time of day. It's a long story but it had a very profound impact on my world. While I was there, I was trying to convince a priest that reincarnation was true!

But this is dependent on chasing an apparition and "wonders" which you said is a sign of weak faith.
Does this mean that your faith is weak?

If not, what's the difference?

kelly1 wrote: »

I've attempted to answer this already. If God did do that, and I'm sure he could since he created the universe, then it would be a miracle beyond any doubt, incontrovertible. But this would interfere with God's plan whereby he wants to love him, but doesn't force us. It would be like a lesser version of Jesus appearing in the sky.

But this doesn't make any sense.
If he was worried about his plan, then why give anyone any cures at all?

Why then did you claim earlier that there were examples of cures that are impossible to explain by natural means? There wouldn't be any difference between these and the equally impossible and convincing instance of a regrown arm.

What you are saying is that God only cures things that you can't see and only in ways that can happen naturally and only at a rate less than what naturally occurs.
That looks awfully like God isn't doing anything at all.

So why do you think he is?
Why do you expect anyone to buy the idea that he does?

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Luke 18:8 - However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

If he does return, he'll find an awful lot of people are doing a lot of awful things in his name.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

But this is dependent on chasing an apparition and "wonders" which you said is a sign of weak faith.
Does this mean that your faith is weak?

I'll tell you why King Mob, my mother died there! It was her dying wish! And the only reason I went there is because my brother invited me after his experiences there. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So will please stop making assumptions!?

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Can't help you with moving statues, but this was the only true faith for me in the 80s

Decent song, but a terrible video. On-topic, I'd prefer this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YewVugPHon4

kelly1 wrote: »

You could say faith isn't what it used to be. Jesus prophesied this:

Luke 18:8 - However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

This forum bears this out.

No, you believe that a book of dubious provenance which states that some guy called Jesus said such a thing is correct. You are just stating your belief as a fact with nothing other than a book (which is true because it says it's true) to back it up. Same old same old.

kelly1 wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that you might, in general, be taking your skepticism a bit too far?

How is that possible? If something is provable then it's provable. If it's not, it's not.

Is there any doubt in your mind that other minds exist, for example? How do you actually know other minds exist?

Yes there is and no I don't, but some working assumptions are essential for everyday life to function. I won't get far at work by rejecting my boss's demands and then questioning his existence with HR - or the existence of HR with HR...

No, I can't. Think of what I have to do to convince myself beyond all reasonable doubt. I'd have to travel to Lourdes and have a meeting with the doctors who looked after the patients, and meet with those who claimed to be cured etc. And even then, I would have no absolute proof. I would have to make a judgement based on probability/plausibility.

From where I'm standing, you've chosen to believe something on the basis of essentially nothing. Which is fine as far as it goes, but if you start posting about it in this den of iniquity you can expect to be questioned on it.

I've attempted to answer this already. If God did do that, and I'm sure he could since he created the universe, then it would be a miracle beyond any doubt, incontrovertible. But this would interfere with God's plan whereby he wants to love him, but doesn't force us. It would be like a lesser version of Jesus appearing in the sky.

Isn't a picture of Mary appearing on a wall just a lesser version of Jesus appearing in the sky? How is the former OK but not the latter? Why is it always Marian visions with catholics, anyway?


....

To answer the OP, my mother was a quite devout catholic but she had no time for funny statues or Medjugorje*.

Which is a bit ironic as she'd been on at least one pilgrimage to Lourdes before she got married, and only a few years before the statue stuff happened/didn't happen, she dragged the whole family off on a day trip to Knock, which was for me, about 10 years of age, one of my formative experiences in realising that the whole shebang was a sub-Wizard of Oz load of nonsense for gullible fools who required separation from their money.


* yes I had to look up the spelling

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll tell you why King Mob, my mother died there! It was her dying wish! And the only reason I went there is because my brother invited me after his experiences there. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So will please stop making assumptions!?

I'm sorry for you loss, but I am not making assumptions.

Your own personal experiences are not convincing however, nor do they excuse the hypocritical statements you make regarding other apparitions and "wonders" that you don't believe in.
I'm sure that there are many others who have had similar emotional experiences around other miracles and holy sites you do not believe in. Does this make them real?

Nor does it excuse any of the problems with the idea of God conducting miracles there in the first place.
It does not excuse him for withholding cures from some people or for only curing people in ways that look exactly like he's not doing anything.

If you want to continue honestly exploring this idea, then you are welcome to.
However, if you are not going to consider my position and be offended because you have painful emotions surrounding the idea, then your mind is closed on the matter.

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll tell you why King Mob, my mother died there! It was her dying wish! And the only reason I went there is because my brother invited me after his experiences there. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So will please stop making assumptions!?

Sorry about your mother kelly1, but that does not stop this post being a complete non-sequitur. People can only respond based on information available, this information was not available and still seems rather irrelevant. I don't see that King Mob made any unreasonable assumptions.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Your own personal experiences are not convincing however, nor do they excuse the hypocritical statements you make regarding other apparitions and "wonders" that you don't believe in.

It's like you don't want to see my point.

Again, I am saying that people who are in good health and in no need or miracles, demonstrate a lack of faith by "chasing signs and wonders". On the other hand, thousands have gone to Lourdes with faith seeking cures. They were going there with faith, not looking to have their faith bolstered.

And as I said before, I didn't go there looking for signs, I went there, somewhat reluctantly following an invitation from my brother.

So explain to me in simple english, how that is hypocritical?

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

It's like you don't want to see my point.

Again, I am saying that people who are in good health and in no need or miracles, demonstrate a lack of faith by "chasing signs and wonders". On the other hand, thousands have gone to Lourdes with faith seeking cures. They were going there with faith, not looking to have their faith bolstered.

And as I said before, I didn't go there looking for signs, I went there, somewhat reluctantly following an invitation from my brother.

So explain to me in simple english, how that is hypocritical?

Because it's assuming that your experience is uniquely valuable and somehow superior to others. This doesn't hold up considering you are claiming to have been converted because of the miracles and wonders at Lourdes, which sounds exactly like what you are decrying. And at the very least, it seems you are insinuating your brother's faith is weak...

It's also ignoring the fact that the entire basis for Lourdes being a thing is because it is based on people chasing signs and wonders.
People only consider it a holy site in the first place because they were chasing signs and wonders. There is nothing otherwise special about the place.

It is also because you are pooh-poohing other instances of miracles and wonders when the miracles and wonders at Lourdes are just as transparent and fake.
Why do you not believe in other miracles? Or holy sites for religions other than your own?

Oh, and also, does the bible have some words about judging other people's faith...?

I will take the fact you've ignored the other questions and points as that you are unwilling and unable to answer them.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Because it's assuming that your experience is uniquely valuable and somehow superior to others. This doesn't hold up considering you are claiming to have been converted because of the miracles and wonders at Lourdes, which sounds exactly like what you are decrying. And at the very least, it seems you are insinuating your brother's faith is weak...

You've got to be trolling here?

1) I made no such claim that "[my] experience is uniquely valuable and somehow superior to others."

2) You're wrong about "you are claiming to have been converted because of the miracles and wonders at Lourdes". My conversion happened because I prayed for God's help to find the truth in my spiritual search. I saw no miracles in Lourdes.

Like I said, assumptions.

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you not believe in other miracles? Or holy sites for religions other than your own?

You'll need to be more specific here. Moving statues are of no interest to me.

King Mob wrote: »

I will take the fact you've ignored the other questions and points as that you are unwilling and unable to answer them.

Tell me what you want answered. Tbh, I don't have the time to comprehensively answer every single point you make.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

You've got to be trolling here?

1) I made no such claim that "[my] experience is uniquely valuable and somehow superior to others."

But your faith is stronger than some other people's faith because you went to the site of an apparition for the "correct" reasons?

kelly1 wrote: »

2) You're wrong about "you are claiming to have been converted because of the miracles and wonders at Lourdes". My conversion happened because I prayed for God's help to find the truth in my spiritual search. I saw no miracles in Lourdes.

Like I said, assumptions.

So you went to Lourdes to confirm your faith...?
Which seems exactly like what you were decrying a few posts ago...

kelly1 wrote: »

You'll need to be more specific here. Moving statues are of no interest to me.

Well the examples in the OP for a start.
Why are they not interesting to you? Aren't they God's work?
If not, how do you know?

kelly1 wrote: »

Tell me what you want answered. Tbh, I don't have the time to comprehensively answer every single point you make.

These points please:

But this doesn't make any sense.
If he was worried about his plan, then why give anyone any cures at all?

Why then did you claim earlier that there were examples of cures that are impossible to explain by natural means? There wouldn't be any difference between these and the equally impossible and convincing instance of a regrown arm.

What you are saying is that God only cures things that you can't see and only in ways that can happen naturally and only at a rate less than what naturally occurs.
That looks awfully like God isn't doing anything at all.

So why do you think he is?
Why do you expect anyone to buy the idea that he does?

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

So you went to Lourdes to confirm your faith...?

You're either trolling or not terribly bright.

For the very last time, I went to Lourdes because I was asked by my brother and I went only because my mother died there.

FYI, from here on, I'm ignoring you.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

You're either trolling or not terribly bright.

For the very last time, I went to Lourdes because I was asked by my brother and I went only because my mother died there.

FYI, from here on, I'm ignoring you.

I don't understand. How does your mother not being cured in Lourdes prove anything?

There have only been 4 official miracle healings since the 70s, that's a lot less than spontaneous remission rates.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

You're either trolling or not terribly bright.

For the very last time, I went to Lourdes because I was asked by my brother and I went only because my mother died there.

FYI, from here on, I'm ignoring you.

Yes, you have said. You have also said that it was part of the reason you converted and believe.

You have also been using the dubious claims of miracles as evidence for the supernatural and god.

If this isn't the case, then I can't really be blamed for thinking it was.
You should post what you mean instead.

However, you on top of insulting me are now avoiding the questions yet again.
You decry others for chasing miracles and apparitions as having weak faith.
You base your faith on miracles and your conversion depended on a holy site that exist only because of apparitions.

This is hypocritical.
(Also, it's a bit hypocritical for a Christian to judge other people's faith, first stones and all that...)

You also hold up Lourdes as having real miracles, but dismiss other claimed miracles simply because they don't appeal to you for whatever reason.
They all have the same amount of supporting evidence and make the same amount of sense.

They have none and they don't.

This is hypocritical.

When you attempt to address the central paradox that such miraculous healings lead to, your answer is flawed and self contradictory, but rather than face that, you are proudly declaring you are ignoring it.

This is hypocritical.

branie2

kelly1 wrote: »

You're either trolling or not terribly bright.

For the very last time, I went to Lourdes because I was asked by my brother and I went only because my mother died there.

FYI, from here on, I'm ignoring you.

So sorry to hear that! :-(

looksee

Mod: kelly1 you have been warned (yellow card) for accusing others of trolling and for personal insults. Please keep your arguments civil.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

I don't understand. How does your mother not being cured in Lourdes prove anything?

I made no such claim. How could that prove anything?? She didn't go to Lourdes to be healed, she went because she wanted to go there before she died. And I'm so glad I went because of her and my brother's invitation.

branie2

I'm Christian, but sceptical of Christina Gallagher's "apparitions"

kelly1

branie2 wrote: »

I'm Christian, but sceptical of Christina Gallagher's "apparitions"

Good example. I think Medjugorje falls into the same category (IMO).

In the genuine apparitions e.g. Lourdes, Fatima, Knock, the message is short an simple and not repeated day after day (for years on end), changing a few words here an there.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Good example. I think Medjugorje falls into the same category (IMO).

In the genuine apparitions e.g. Lourdes, Fatima, Knock, the message is short an simple and not repeated day after day (for years on end), changing a few words here an there.

Genuine apparitions? We seem to be getting back to square circles there.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

I made no such claim. How could that prove anything?? She didn't go to Lourdes to be healed, she went because she wanted to go there before she died. And I'm so glad I went because of her and my brother's invitation.

But that's what I'm confused about. Your mother wanted to go to Lourdes before she died, ye went to Lourdes, therefore... what?

I was there myself many years ago, in the off-season, and was struck by how peaceful the place was (again: in the off season) but I can't say I found it any different to a lovely stretch of the Liffey outside the city, or the view from the 3 Rocks.

branie2

kylith wrote: »

But that's what I'm confused about. Your mother wanted to go to Lourdes before she died, ye went to Lourdes, therefore... what?

I was there myself many years ago, in the off-season, and was struck by how peaceful the place was (again: in the off season) but I can't say I found it any different to a lovely stretch of the Liffey outside the city, or the view from the 3 Rocks.

Religious people might get a nice buzz from it.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

But that's what I'm confused about. Your mother wanted to go to Lourdes before she died, ye went to Lourdes, therefore... what?

ok, I went to Lourdes, not because I wanted to go but because my brother asked me to go. And he asked me to go because he was with her when she died, 6 years previously. I was wary of going but I went.

At the time I went to Lourdes, I had long abandoned my Catholic faith and was into New Age/Yoga stuff at the time. Believed in reincarnation etc.

So the atmosphere in Lourdes made a great impression on me. I found the people there very joyful, in a way I hadn't really seen before. I was also impressed by the genuine strong faith of the pilgrims. Again something I hadn't particularly seen before.

At the time I still believed in God, but I though Jesus was an "Ascended Master", just like Buddha, Krishna, various yogis etc. It makes me embarrassed admitting this now.

So on the night we were due to go home, I went down to the grotto to pray for guidance from God because, even though I thought I had found the answers in yoga, I thought it wouldn't do any harm. I've had been on a long and tortuous road trying to discover the truth about God. Tried lots of philosophies etc.

And when I got home from Lourdes, I unexpectedly found myself very interested in Christianity and in fact I found out just how little I knew. For instance, I didn't know why Jesus died on the cross, I never understood that point.

I spent the next couple of years devouring all the theology and biographies of the saints that I could get my hands on. I learned about all the traditional devotions associated with the Church. I did a course on theology and even started a prayer group.

I also had a very profound realization experience on day of how I had turned my back on Jesus/God by the way I lived and how I'd been following false religions. I knew there and then what the parable of the prodigal son was all about and to this day I still get emotional reading it.

But I can tell you that day turned my life upside down. It changed my worldview so dramatically. My new found faith was like finding a treasure chest and I never want to go back to my previous way of thinking and living.

That's not any kind of evidence I know, but it is for me. To me, the change that came over me was nothing short of a miracle.

looksee

Finally, that is a convincing post. I don't think it will make any converts or persuade anyone, in this forum anyway, that there is something there, but I can kinda see how you reached your conclusion. The fact that I would not be convinced is irrelevant.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

I've attempted to answer this already. If God did do that, and I'm sure he could since he created the universe, then it would be a miracle beyond any doubt, incontrovertible. But this would interfere with God's plan whereby he wants to love him, but doesn't force us. It would be like a lesser version of Jesus appearing in the sky.

I've heard this argument before but I've never really understood why so many Christians put their faith in this Deus Absconditus notion that God has to hide himself from humanity to an extent because as theologian Michael Murray said if we were powerfully aware of God's existence then we would no longer have free will that we would be compelled to believe and obey. Of course this idea is ridiculous. Several people in the Bible have no problem disobeying God despite having (in some instances) face to face conversations with God. Cain even manages to kill his own brother despite having spoken to God. So the argument that God couldn't cure amputees because it would compromise free will is not just ridiculous but is just plagiarising Douglas Adams:

""The argument goes something like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'
'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?
It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic."

EDIT: I know this is off-topic from the OP but I can't really help with the OP's question because I was only 4 when Ballinspittle happened.

kelly1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I've heard this argument before but I've never really understood why so many Christians put their faith in this Deus Absconditus notion that God has to hide himself from humanity to an extent...

But of the two scenarios, one being that God is plainly visible and two, God is hidden, which one is most likely to diminish free-will?

There is also the merit argument. It's a Catholic doctrine that all good deeds are rewarded in Heaven. So good deeds done freely deserve more merit than those done less freely. This result in a greater good for those who are faithful.

branie2

I've been to Lourdes three times myself, and it was a great experience

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

In the genuine apparitions e.g. Lourdes, Fatima, Knock,

:rolleyes: there is no evidence - none - that these are any more genuine than any other highly dubious claim.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?
It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic."

I liked that passage so much I made an avatar out of it (well, the BBC did really)

kelly1 wrote: »

But of the two scenarios, one being that God is plainly visible and two, God is hidden, which one is most likely to diminish free-will?

We are (or, at least, I was) told that the goal of God / Jesus was to save as many souls as possible.

Is maintaining absolute free will really more important than that? i.e. it is necessary to condemn a substantial proportion or even the majority of humanity to eternal hellfire just to not mess up some arbitrary principle.

We're back again to the Stephen Fry style notion that if any omnipotent god exists they must be monstrously cruel. Also the problem of evil as Epicurus among others have discussed.

David Hume - Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) wrote:

Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

kelly1 wrote: »

There is also the merit argument. It's a Catholic doctrine that all good deeds are rewarded in Heaven. So good deeds done freely deserve more merit than those done less freely. This result in a greater good for those who are faithful.

Surely a good deed done with the expectation of eternal reward (or out of fear of eternal punishment) is not done truly freely.

A theist can't therefore be truly altruistic.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

But of the two scenarios, one being that God is plainly visible and two, God is hidden, which one is most likely to diminish free-will?

There is also the merit argument. It's a Catholic doctrine that all good deeds are rewarded in Heaven. So good deeds done freely deserve more merit than those done less freely. This result in a greater good for those who are faithful.

Hmmm, that's interesting in that it could be read as atheists being more deserving of heaven than the 'faithful'. Any good I, or other, atheists do is done purely of our own free will, expecting of no reward, because we believe it is the right thing to do. Whereas any good a Christian does they do in the knowledge that all good deeds count towards 'heaven points'. Therefore any good deed they do lacks purely free will in that they are doing it for a particular purpose ("Do good deeds or go to hell" removing 'free' will as one is only doing good under threat of punishment) whereas my good deed is 100% free and therefore more deserving of merit.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote: »

But of the two scenarios, one being that God is plainly visible and two, God is hidden, which one is most likely to diminish free-will?

Well it can't be the latter as you've pointed to supposed examples of impossible cures at Lourdes. You've cited examples of cures that you claim cannot be explained by natural means, and they are as convincing as a person regrowing an arm. So there's no reason why he shouldn't regrow one for a person.

Unless now you would like to change your mind and say that all cures at Lourdes have a possible natural explanation that doesn't require a god?

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

But of the two scenarios, one being that God is plainly visible and two, God is hidden, which one is most likely to diminish free-will?

In the eyes of someone with faith, god does plainly exist. So wouldn't belief in god, any god, therefore diminish free will?

kelly1 wrote: »

There is also the merit argument. It's a Catholic doctrine that all good deeds are rewarded in Heaven. So good deeds done freely deserve more merit than those done less freely. This result in a greater good for those who are faithful.

But if those faithful are doing those good deeds because of the greater good (i.e. more reward in heaven), then how are those good deeds being done truly free? The only way for those good deeds to be truly free would be if the people doing them didn't even have any idea of god or heaven at all.

magicbastarder

let's assume for a second that these miracles *do* happen at lourdes. why does god need or want a geographic basis for them? is it not capricious to require seriously ill people to travel to a foreign country in order for him to deign to bestow his cure on them?

especially since the number of verified cures is easily outstripped by the number of people killed on the way there.