The last of three little shepherds of Fatima died today

[Jon Miller]

Shi is correct (and logical)

Jon Miller

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


I'd hope people would be better after the death of someone and not mock them or their life, But I guess on this forum we can't have any respect for the dead if the deceased is a Catholic Nun.

For the record, I am personally scpeitcal about Fatima, but I wouldn't go mocking it on the death of one of Fatima's caretakers. Recquiset in Pacem.

I'm not mocking the person, I'm mocking those people who claim that a document made in 1940 "prophesizing" (sp!) WW2 and the rise of Communism is, in fact, a prophesy.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by mindseye

What about the sign of "a night illuminated by an unknown light" before the outbreak of war? According to Fatima Prophecies, "on January 25, 1938, a remarkable display of aurora borealis was visible across Europe, the year before World War II began."

This "display" (and not all that remarkable a one at that) appeared nearly two years before the war started. That qualifies as a sign that the war was "about to" begin?

Standard practice for psychics and the like.

Any unusual atmospheric phenomena anywhere over Europe in the years leading up to the war could equally be cited as "proof" of the accuracy of the prophesy.

And of course ... monumentally unimpressive after the fact!

Stop mocking!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Um... isn't the burden of proof on those who are making the assertion? What proof is there that they did see it?"

I am not suggesting that you believe it because it isn't proved, rather that you not accuse them of being frauds without sufficent proof of their fraudulency.

The prophesy of WW2, the rise of Communism, the "strange lights", and the end of WW1 made after the fact is sufficient proof of fraudulency to 'most anybody. Except true-believers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am not suggesting that you believe it because it isn't proved, rather that you not accuse them of being frauds without sufficent proof of their fraudulency.

Well making claims without any backing is usually considered enough for fradulency .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It's such utter bullsh*t isn't it? Also make the prophecies suitably vague and you could justify it as anything...

Can you prove I don't believe that Ganymede is made of green cheese and populated by a race of spacefaring cheese mites?

And that verily that this aforesaid oracle was vouchsafed to me by the apparation of the Holey Gorgonzola in the Cheddar Gorge?


Thought not.

[Heresson]

Yes I can

Yes I can

[Imran Siddiqui]

Go ahead then .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Go ahead then .

When you have ended all the temptations, will you then depart for a season?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Go ahead then .

What I need is molly bloom tied tightly, a set of torture instruments.
I could do it with lie detector, but it'd be less fun.

[Shi Huangdi]

"The prophesy of WW2, the rise of Communism, the "strange lights", and the end of WW1 made after the fact is sufficient proof of fraudulency to 'most anybody. Except true-believers."

No, there is absolutely no proof of fraudulency, that they did not in fact recieve those prophicies in 1917.

"
Well making claims without any backing is usually considered enough for fradulency ."

Lack of Proof of a statement does not indicate that the statemnt is false. I can say "I had a Chicken Sandwich for lunch today." I can't prove this in anyway, but that is not evidence I am lying to you.

I am not saying you should not hold a high standard of proof of when it comes to what you believe. I am suggesting you might want a slightly higher standard of evidence when dealing with malicious claims about people.

I doubt any of you would be pleased if somebody close to you were to die, and people started disparaging them as frauds with evidence to justify it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by molly bloom

And that verily that this aforesaid oracle was vouchsafed to me by the apparation of the Holey Gorgonzola in the Cheddar Gorge?

Yeah, right. A Gorgonzola in Somerset. Like that's even remotely possible.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"The prophesy of WW2, the rise of Communism, the "strange lights", and the end of WW1 made after the fact is sufficient proof of fraudulency to 'most anybody. Except true-believers."

No, there is absolutely no proof of fraudulency, that they did not in fact recieve those prophicies in 1917.

"
Well making claims without any backing is usually considered enough for fradulency ."

Lack of Proof of a statement does not indicate that the statemnt is false. I can say "I had a Chicken Sandwich for lunch today." I can't prove this in anyway, but that is not evidence I am lying to you.

I am not saying you should not hold a high standard of proof of when it comes to what you believe. I am suggesting you might want a slightly higher standard of evidence when dealing with malicious claims about people.

I doubt any of you would be pleased if somebody close to you were to die, and people started disparaging them as frauds with evidence to justify it.

once more

the epitome of reason

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

The Virgin of Guadeloupe PWNs the Virgin of Fatimah.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"The prophesy of WW2, the rise of Communism, the "strange lights", and the end of WW1 made after the fact is sufficient proof of fraudulency to 'most anybody. Except true-believers."

No, there is absolutely no proof of fraudulency, that they did not in fact recieve those prophicies in 1917.

Only 23 years of silence.

"
Well making claims without any backing is usually considered enough for fradulency ."

Lack of Proof of a statement does not indicate that the statemnt is false. I can say "I had a Chicken Sandwich for lunch today." I can't prove this in anyway, but that is not evidence I am lying to you.

I think there are a little difference between the two statements. Noone would think it would be especially weird if you had a chicken sandwich for lunch. Predictions about worldwars etc are in an other class, and people has the rigth to bne suspicious if they are stated after they happened.

I am not saying you should not hold a high standard of proof of when it comes to what you believe. I am suggesting you might want a slightly higher standard of evidence when dealing with malicious claims about people.

I doubt any of you would be pleased if somebody close to you were to die, and people started disparaging them as frauds with evidence to justify it.

I don't think anyone is attacking the person, just the statements, especially if the statements cannot be proven. How come that when somebody dies, then their statements suddently get a status that makes it improper to say that they are not true ? Their dead does not add any creadibility to the statement.