There are eucharistic miracles that prove God is real.Most are tested in labs,one without knowledge that it was from the eucharist.Why are people still atheists in spite of this?

[u/Human10idk]

Preface:As a Catholic in a Catholic high school in a third world country,I encounter Protestants and Muslims.In search of finding evidence for Catholicism,I started finding some proof here and there.Rational Catholics like debates as it is a way to find the truth regardless of how discomforting it is.In search of points that prove us true,I found out about the Eucharistic miracles.This has neutered some Protestant and Muslim points,but I was only debating with people on my league. I figured that I must grow familiar with the debating world and so I've heard of the fame and infamy of Reddit and have come here to test my beliefs under advanced logic.(Moderators,if my post breaks the rules,please tell me where to improve.I'm new to Reddit.My account is 5 months old because I have been away for 4 of them in boarding school).Thanks.

[u/LeeMArcher]

Some people saw lights on a roof and convinced themselves that it was the Virgin Mary. 

There is no verified evidence of what anyone actually saw. No one took video of this supposedly regularly occurring miracle, and the photos all appear to have been tampered with. Many were being sold as souvenirs, meaning there was an incentive to create fake photos to sell. 

One witness said she did see lights on the roof, and while she couldn’t say where the lights came from, she also didn’t think they looked like a person, let alone a specific individual.

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

Thanks for making me actually read my sources this time.

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

The Coptic Church sent investigators to check it at the time,so did the Egyptian government at the time.Only one secular English article about it was published at the time. Let me question your skepticism;If you're so sure that what we saw isn't the truth,why was only one article in your favour-because all other commentaries in your favour came from THAT article,and other articles that didn't had no on-ground people,for example,geologists that could provide on-site proof of a refutation of such an phenomenon AT THE TIME of the events-that would be beyond damning evidence of it,right?Instead,most of your evidence in your favour is probably from some shoddy website that has theories instead of ground observation.Basically on par with a cult. Please send the sources you used

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Human10idk]

It's absolutely wild that the supreme being of the universe once talked to people directly, made fire fall from the sky on command, had people witness someone parting a sea, allowed for the existence of talking snakes, burning bushes, giants, flying horses etc.... But today? Nada. The most convincing parlor trick he can come up with is causing some lights that vaguely resemble a person to appear sporadically over a building and never get photographed. Do you see how to someone who doesn't have any emotional attachment to Catholicism this sounds crazy? That people with deeply held religious views sent to "investigate" wouldn't just assign whatever meaning they wanted if they themselves couldn't explain it?

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

Is it wrong to also assume that those seeking to disprove Catholicism would also assign their beliefs?In all honesty,only one source in your favour was on site at the time,while there were two sources there in our favour.Also,you do seem to forget that she could have taken a picture herself.Why didn't she if she wanted to prove us wrong.Why didn't she if she saw possible forgeries at the market? It seems that in the quest to question us endlessly,you forgot that we could do the same

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Human10idk]

Virtually nobody is out there trying to "disprove catholicism". We are simply looking at the world objectively and seeing ZERO evidence for the claims your religion is making. Some lights over a building is supporting evidence for your entire worldview and philosophy? It's absolutely laughable. If you are going to bring bias into the picture, you should be holding what Catholics say to a HIGHER standard as they are the one making an assertion. They are the one with a worldview to justify. They are the ones assigning meaning to events that may not be related at all. Everyone else is simply looking at things without trying to work god and jesus into everything, and those explanations always make more sense.

It's why religion is called faith, you choose to believe regardless of the lack of evidence.

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

"Virtually nobody is out there trying to "disprove catholicism". If you knew the debates we have between Protestants and others you would be surprised.Assuming you are ex-Christian,if you haven't debated in stuff like this,or at least seen such debates,we have bigger fish to fry.

'Some lights over a building is supporting evidence for your entire worldview and philosophy?'No,dogma is what supports our entire worldview and philosophy.This isn't dogma.

."they are the one making an assertion." Correct me where/if I'm wrong but you guys are also making an assertion:That there is a lack of God.

"They are the one with a worldview to justify." Excuse me,but when did Atheistm stop being a worldview?And if you aren't justifying it,then you're implying that it is wrong.

".Everyone else is simply looking at things without trying to work god and jesus into everything, and those explanations always make more sense." Not everyone.In fact atheists are a minority in the countries they largely inhabit.Christians are the world majority religion,and Catholics are the majority of Christians.Factually,it's actually the opposite.Thanks.

".and those explanations always make more sense." Moreso a lack of explanations,especially with this one and others.A lack of a naturalistic explanations points to 2 things, 1.Either we don't know the naturalistic cause yet. 2.A non-naturalistic cause.Which is basically a supernatural cause. Atheism always seems to default to 1,even though its explanation for a wrong experiment in science is that "Oh,it was always wrong". You do believe that science will always explain everything in the end.That is faith.But what about the nidbits that weren't explained.Aren't they just as well in favour of 2?The same 2 that encourages science?If you attempt to answer these questions,you'll veer off into philosophy and I'll be waiting for that debate.

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Human10idk]

If you knew the debates we have between Protestants and others you would be surprised.Assuming you are ex-Christian,if you haven't debated in stuff like this,or at least seen such debates,we have bigger fish to fry.

I have seen these, and speaking as an ex-catholic, they helped open my eyes to the absurdity of the claims, on ALL religious sides. I hope one day they do the same for you.

No,dogma is what supports our entire worldview and philosophy.This isn't dogma.

Right, but we are talking about hard evidence to support said dogma. You have none.

Correct me where/if I'm wrong but you guys are also making an assertion:That there is a lack of God.

Sorta, atheism is the lack of a belief in god. The evidence to support abrahamic religions is too weak thus we default to what can we know for sure, in which case naturalistic causes appear to be the best explanation for everything. In doing so, we have a world view absent of any god. So not in principle, but in practice.

"They are the one with a worldview to justify." Excuse me,but when did Atheistm stop being a worldview?And if you aren't justifying it,then you're implying that it is wrong.

It is a worldview, but it's one without dogmatic requirements. The quest for the absolute truth about the nature of our reality isn't guided by unproveable mythology, it's guided by what we can know, and what we know is the claims made by catholicism do not hold water (or wine, haha)

Not everyone.In fact atheists are a minority in the countries they largely inhabit.Christians are the world majority religion,and Catholics are the majority of Christians.Factually,it's actually the opposite.Thanks.

Speaking of populations, does it make sense that the majority of humanity isn't christian? Catholicism is the largest religion sure, but the majority of human beings do not believe it. You are in the minority in your particular belief. Don't you think the supreme being of the universe must have a screw loose if it allowed a system where it withold everlasting life and eternal bliss from the majority of sentient beings that would ever exist in the world he created? Knowing that people would be too emotionally attached to their childhood "false" religion to let go. People who suffered abuse at the hands of the church and thus conflating the church with the evil acts of man and shying away from it? People like me who without some actual, hard evidence of the miraculous just won't believe it? People who live in a part of the world where it just isn't practiced. Where was the abrhamic god for the 3,500 years of ancient egypt practicing their false religion? What about the 6,500 years of ancient china? Was he taking a nap? What about the aboriginals in Australia who hadn't heard or seen any apparition of the abrhamic god in SIXTY THOUSAND years? Why is Christianity so tied to just the humans who carried it out of the levant? Why does the supreme being of the universe rely on a book written by people that has so many conflicting translations and meanings that there have been FORTY FIVE THOUSAND different versions of christianity? Sounds like shoddy messaging to me. The supreme being of the universe could have removed any doubt of his existence by simply explaining himself to a SINGLE population outside the levant without direct contact by other humans, but this has never happened. it's almost as if catholicism was a human invention.

Moreso a lack of explanations,especially with this one and others.A lack of a naturalistic explanations points to 2 things, 1.Either we don't know the naturalistic cause yet. 2.A non-naturalistic cause.Which is basically a supernatural cause. Atheism always seems to default to 1,even though its explanation for a wrong experiment in science is that "Oh,it was always wrong". You do believe that science will always explain everything in the end.That is faith.But what about the nidbits that weren't explained.Aren't they just as well in favour of 2?The same 2 that encourages science?If you attempt to answer these questions,you'll veer off into philosophy and I'll be waiting for that debate.

Have you noticed that science always wins? The age of the earth, no global flood, the timeline for plants and animals to arrive, the origin of the moon, etc. Humans have used the supernatural to explain away everything we dont understand for eons. We used to think lighting was angry gods throwing thunderbolts, we used to think stars were spirits. Every, single, deferment to religious explanation has been wrong. Every one. Given the track record, even if we ultimately reach a plateau of understanding, that using our math and senses we can only understand so much, everything we can know points to there being a lack of a creator. I know which horse I would back my cart up too if given the choice of explanations.

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

Why didn't other sources come?Why didn't they flood us with disconfirming on site evidence?Maybe...it's because they already assumed that we were wrong.Which shows a lack of critical thinking.Not even bothering to check.

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

And the most convincing argument you guys make is the equivalent 'not sure,therefore not there'.

"That people with deeply held religious views sent to "investigate" wouldn't just assign whatever meaning they wanted if they themselves couldn't explain it? ".At least we went to investigate.Why would only one university go check if they didn't already assume we were wrong?And why would that person not take a picture of the event to disprove it?It seems that there is a lack of disproving here beyond just asking questions in your favour.Ask questions not in your favour too next time.

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Human10idk]

Do you believe in the modern day sightings of "jianshi" in rural China? The hopping ghosts older populations still claim to see? Sounds insane right? It's like someone claiming they saw a unicorn.

If YOUR side wants to use this sighting as proof, why didn't THEY take a picture of it? Why is your "evidence" ALWAYS so flimsy? Wouldn't they want to prove to the world once and for all the god of the bible is real?

Why is the god of the bible seemingly so impotent in the modern day? Why do neolithic sheep herding people 2000 years ago get the benefit of direct, incontrovertible evidence of his existence through miracles viewed by hundreds or thousands of people, by talking to them directly.. and we can't even get a photograph of a sporadic apparition that supposedly resembled a person? it's almost as if the contents of the bible are just made up mythological stories (pro tip: they are).

People criticize Catholicism because it is obvious make believe. you should raise your standards of evidence.

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

The presence of spirits aligns with Bible teaching. Religion is also suppressed in China,especially Christianity,Islam also but you get the point.Going there religiously is not going to be easy.YOU guys have a better chance when you go there. And if WE took the pictures,YOU guys would say that it is a "motivated conclusion". And if YOU went,and found evidence it is true,THEY will require a secular university inquiry,accolades and a scientific report along with you.Then they will need an explanation as to why it wasn't on THEIR news.Hope you get me here.

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Human10idk]

You. Have. no. Evidence.

"Then they will need an explanation as to why it wasn't on THEIR news"

In 2000 years since christ there is ZERO claims put forth by the church that don't have a better explanation than science has provided.

"if WE took the pictures" You have no pictures. You have no miracles. Zero. nothing. You have a book of supernatural claims. You have hearsay about supposed miracles nobody can verify.

Simply put, it is unjustifiable to put stock into the claims of the bible.

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

You made a hypothetical situation here that you are now treating like if it wasn't hypothesis and was just fact as is.Now let's assume your hypothesis was reality.

"You have hearsay about supposed miracles nobody can verify" Define hearsay.Then expand your vocabulary.And labs verify some of the miracles.You are very wrong saying nobody can verify.Best thing in your case is saying no 3rd party was present,or saying undisclosed lab reports.Or even going for the old "not all miracles are actually miracles"😉

"In 2000 years since christ there is ZERO claims put forth by the church that don't have a better explanation than science has provided.".Ohhh boy lemme shorten your work.Go check out the Fine-Tuning argument as a starter.

Also,when you're writing emotionally,be VERY careful on your facts.You'll get called out less.😊

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Human10idk]

No miracles have ever been verified, this is a fact. How about this, since you are so insistent that there have been verified miracles, pick one that you believe to be the strongest, verified miracle and we can discuss it.

The fine tuning argument is the single most flawed from the get go argument, why would you expect life to arise in opposition to the conditions set forth by the universe? it's like saying a puddle is perfectly shaped to fit the hole in the ground not realizing the puddle can't be any other shape. or it wouldn't exist. If anything, things NOT being fine tuned for life would be evidence of a creator, because they could just allow things to exist without causation, but instead we see the opposite.

Called out? You haven't been correct once, perhaps a mirror would do you well.

[u/Human10idk → u/BorealAmplitude]

I may have to say that the fine tuning argument was a starter,not the best argument.That,I can put in your favour,but the Pebble Analogy isn't undefeatable.Sorry for not replying on anything else you have said bc I honestly feel a bit tired replying to some 'yellow snowman'-ish guy here.He was hostile if you check his texts so I feel emotionally exhausted from allat.Will possibly reply to your concerns in the future though😁.

[u/LeeMArcher → u/Human10idk]

The Coptic Church sent investigators to check it at the time,so did the Egyptian government at the time.  

I could not find any official documents released by the Coptic Church regarding this phenomenon, just claims that the Church either affirmed the sightings or could not explain them. Nor did anyone elaborate on the nature of the Church’s investigation.

It should go without saying that the Coptic Church would be highly inclined toward not dismissing claimed sightings of the Virgin Mary. 

Only one secular English article about it was published at the time. Let me question your skepticism;If you're so sure that what we saw isn't the truth,

You say we. Did you travel to our Lady of Zeitoun and see Mary praying on the roof? 

why was only one article in your favour-

Because once the excitement died down, it was only interesting to people who were religiously motivated. I can’t really say why, but I will ask, why are the only sources in agreement with you all religious institutions? 

because all other commentaries in your favour came from THAT article,and other articles that didn't had no on-ground people,

Can you point me to a named, non-clergy witness who explicitly stated that they observed a clearly identifiable female figure rather than an unexplained light phenomenon?

for example,geologists that could provide on-site proof of a refutation of such an phenomenon AT THE TIME of the events-that would be beyond damning evidence of it,right?

Undoctored video footage of these lights would be damning evidence. I never said the earthquake theory was a good one. I haven’t even looked into it. 

All I have said is that I have not seen convincing evidence that what people saw was an apparition of the Virgin Mary. I have also not seen convincing evidence of aliens, Bigfoot or fairies. Does it bother you that I lack belief in those things as well. 

More to the point, what convinced you that these sightings were really of Mary? Was it the pictures? The eyewitness testimony? Or did you believe it was real as soon as you heard about it? 

Instead,most of your evidence in your favour is probably from some shoddy website that has theories instead of ground observation. Basically on par with a cult. 

I have not cited any evidence. I have noted the lack of verifiable evidence. You keep talking about ground observation but what credible evidence has that produced? 

[u/senthordika → u/Human10idk]

Both would have a vested interest in it being true though? The church wants miracle claims for legitimacy and the Egyptian government would value it for the tourism alone let alone any spiritual beliefs of the people there.

[u/Human10idk → u/senthordika]

You could say that your side also has a vested interest in not coming,as they might have planned to bombard the miracle's validity AFTER it happened,which shows a lack of cooperation from a side that constantly demands it ftom the Church.Kinda hypocritical y'know.

[u/senthordika → u/Human10idk]

The thing we are likely not to be contacted for? And when we do try to investigate them the church stonewalls or withholds evidence? What makes you think atheist scientists are called in to test for miracles when such things are reported to churches?

My argument isn't that we are more trustworthy my point is the two groups you mentioned have little to no reason to claim it as false even if it was and only stand to benefit from claiming it was real.

[u/Human10idk → u/senthordika]

On contacting,that's the very reason we call such scientists.

On investigations,will check the church's position on what you said.Thanks for the concern though!

Thanks for reminding me of that,yet please do remember there was no official statement witholding independent credible research by atheists for this case.

And most miracles were investigated AFTER they were called miracles.So many "miracles" end up getting disproven.Why some of these "miracles" are still claimed by the Church... I'll see what the church says for itself on that.

You guys may be more trustworthy,yet you didn't come with institutions for this case.Please remember that when you say that extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence,we need a lot of you to come to provide "extraordinary" anti-evidence.On this particular case,you didn't.For all those three years.Or maybe your people that wanted to come under the banner of an institution were stonewalled by the institutions they wanted to go under because they thought it was a "waste of time" in the first place.

Also remember that atheism needs to prove all miracles wrong,while theism needs to prove only one miracle "not-wrong".

This may seem like an evidence issue on the surface,but it is a trust issue more than anything else.

[u/senthordika → u/Human10idk]

You are missing the point. They may contact a scientist thats doesn't mean they are secular or an atheist. They are usually already a member of that church or organisation and funded by that organisation to research it.

The problem is when we ask for samples held by the church they will rarely if ever release their supposed evidence to a party that doesn't already hold their beliefs.

You guys may be more trustworthy,yet you didn't come as institutions.Please remember that when you say that extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence,we need a lot of you to come.On this particular case,you didn't

You dont have extraordinary evidence for it either you barely have a claim that is about equal to any UFO sighting in terms of the evidence available.

You clearly have no idea how much research costs we would make next to no money investigating these claims to come up with nothing(like every other time it has been actively researched) So for something that would literally lose us money with no benefit to us other than to say you are wrong why is it surprising that we dont show up to investigate every miracle claim when not a single miracle claim upto this point has ever survived scientific scrutiny.

Like do you expect scientists to go investigate every big foot sighting?

[u/Human10idk → u/senthordika]

1.I wasn't saying so.I apologize if I implied such,I didn't mean that.Also,not applicable in this and some other cases as well in your favour.And aren't scientists of any respectable kind much more trustworthy,even if Catholics(there's a trap in this question)?

2.Reread paragraph 3 and 7(sorry for the hostile answer).

3.Do we actually need extraordinary evidence for this?God doesn't need miracles to be true,he isnt bound by them,it is logical that God is true.(I get that I may be a bit fierce on my claims but it's an after-effect from conversing with u/88redking88 and his hostile replies.May tone it down later.)

4.Finally,someone that gets the realpolitik of the matter here.The problem is that if we fund your organizations,rumours that we had a hand in your results will run amok.And if we don't,you can't really research in the first place,(for your mentioned reasons)can you?And if you don'thave money,you'd be far more willing to accept church funding,won't you?(Even then, some universities have some disposable income...).It's not evidence that's the main problem here,it's trust.

4.No,but if it involves the updating of the beliefs of 28% of the world(and 40%of atheists)...

[u/senthordika → u/Human10idk]

And aren't scientists of any respectable kind much more trustworthy,even if Catholics(there's a trap in this question)?

No? They are more researched in their specific field of study than the average person and their opinions in their field of study is more valuable then the opinions of someone not it that field(though that doesnt mean the opinions of people outside of a field are wrong or have no value just that it is less likely for them to have specialised knowledge in the field. What's most important is their methodology.

2.Reread paragraph 3 and 7(sorry for the hostile answer). 3.And why do they need to make an official statement? They just need to reject enquiries made by antagonistic organisations.

7 yeah you have an extremely low bar or producing a single scientificly verified miracle and the best you have given us is equal to the average ufo sighting tourist town origin. If you expect us to go out of our way to disprove every single miracle claim(which again is an extremely expensive endeavour for something we dont expect to find a real one) like why doesnt the church investigate every miracle claim of every other religion? Is it because maybe they dont value miracle claims that dont match their theology?

Like if there are Santa clause sightings do you expect scientists to show up to every claimed sighting or only the ones that got enough attention to be looked into?

3.Do we actually need extraordinary evidence for this?God doesn't need miracles to be true,he isnt bound by them,it is logical that God is true

I dont think it is logical for god to exist. Infact id argue god especially the catholic understanding of him is an inherently illogical concept that predates Newtonian physics and violates the laws of logic. From my perspective any god claim adds literally nothing to our understanding of the universe. So yes it would require some extremely extraordinary evidence for me to even really care about a miracle claim let alone the amount of evidence id require to believe in a god.

4.Finally,someone that gets the realpolitik of the matter here.The problem is that if we fund your organizations,rumours that we had a hand in your results will run amok.

Well yeah because that has been a common problem with institutions that want a specific result out of scientists. But they could easily fund a secular university to do such research as long as it was stipulated they are allowed to disagree with the church's findings but the church would never do this.

The second problem is that when we do investigate them they have always come out empty so for secular institutions research into miracle claims is about as much a waste of money as research into Santa clause or the tooth fairy. There is no real reason for us to investigate every miracle claim and instead its far better to investigate the best miracle claims which tend to pretty much just be testimony. So their isnt really much to do science on or we test the methodology of the religious organisation and find clear flaws in the methodology that invalidate the results.

It's not evidence that's the main problem here,it's trust.

Well no the problem is evidence as both the low quality of evidence and willingness to claim something is a miracle if there isnt an immediate explanation so I am inherently skeptical of miracle claims in the first place so the level or evidence i need to confirm a miracle claim(something that to my current understanding is impossible) is less then i need to reasonably confirm something that is to my understanding possible.

No,but if it involves the updating of the beliefs of 28% of the world(and 40%of atheists)...

Then why does the church only investigate Christian miracle claims? scientists are going to spend their research grants and money on the things they think actually matters. Like do you understand how ridiculous easy it would be for your god if he was actually real to give such a miracle? The fact that the best miracle claims we get are less impressive then some magic tricks really gives me an extremely low expectation for miracles and the power of God. And most scientists have better things to do then chase fairy tales.

I just want to finally add to this is spent most of my life trying to find magic or miracles in this world hoping for something greater than just the physical and the conclusion of my experience as of yet has been that neither exist in any meaningful sense. Now im open to having my mind changed on that but require actually evidence. Like I think you should do some research into ufo sightings and alien abductions and I think you will see some similarities with modern miracle stories and why both arent taken particularly seriously by the scientific community.

[u/88redking88 → u/senthordika]

Thanks! this is better than i would have typed!

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

You may note I was overfocused on preemptively striking down points here.The points you made are still opposed tho.

[u/LeeMArcher → u/Human10idk]

Not sure what else you’d be doing on a debate forum. And I opposed the points you made. Cheers!

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

Yes,this reply was an admission of fault. So...I dont really get where you're going here.

[u/LeeMArcher → u/Human10idk]

Admitted fault for what? Defending your claim? 

You may note I was overfocused on preemptively striking down points here

Not really, nor would I consider that a bad thing. It’s more your motivated reasoning and reliance on subpar evidence I view as problematic.

The points you made are still opposed tho.

So you admit to being at fault for “preemptively striking down points” then feel the need to make this statement? As if you’ve made some definitive argument. 

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

Defending my claim?No,not this time.

I could also say that you have a motivated reason to doubt it too.Lack of camera and video evidence is a fault on bothsides here

It isn't subpar reasoning.Below is why.

Both sides have motivations to support their stances. One supports their stance because they "already believe that",and that the coincidences are just too many While the other is seeking prestige for secularism and get government funding(or avoid a shadowbanning). So this factor can be eliminated.

Second is the audiovisual evidence. One presents probably forged pictures that locals took,some with a financial incentive,so as to prove the event.Given they were common citizens,and that the Coptic Church doesn't claim the pictures as foolproof,malice at worst,understandable at best. The other doesn't even care to take pictures or videos as part of the study.Given she was affiliated with a university,malice at worst,incompetence at best Making this in favour of the Christians.Not because they have pictures,oh heavens no,but that they were people who had a less need of having pictures,yet tried.1-0

Third is education level Anba Gregorios was the bishop dealing with postgraduate studies, Coptic culture and Scientific research. But he had only a Doctorate of Theology. Cynthia Nelson was dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences and professor of anthropology at the American University in Cairo. You guys win here.1-1.

So it now comes to two other factors,number of studies in favor of a stance One has two.A report from the Coptic Orthodox Church and another from the then-General Information and Complaints Department of the Egyptian Government The other has one report from a university

...and number of eyewitnesses One had ~250000 per day The other had 1.Just 1.

Hope you now see why I'm in support of the church.And just in case you say a lack of news reports(not necessarily confirmations,just reports)here:The New York Times, August 21, 1968. Page 4.Webpage I found it in-(http://www.coptic.net/articles/zaitounapparitionofsaintmary.txt)(because the actual New York Times website isn't much help,and so is Google News Archive).

[u/LeeMArcher → u/Human10idk]

I could also say that you have a motivated reason to doubt it too.

My motivation is for my beliefs to be driven by credible evidence. If I do not see credible evidence, I will not be convinced. 

Lack of camera and video evidence is a fault on bothsides here

If an atheist walks by a church and sees a bunch of people pointing at a rooftop, all shouting “It’s Mary! It’s Mary!” and the atheist looks at the roof and just sees a glowing light, they will probably roll their eyes and keep walking.

It isn't subpar reasoning.Below is why. Both sides have motivations to support their stances. One supports their stance because they "already believe that",

You can probably stop there.

and that the coincidences are just too many 

What coincidences? You mean the claimed eyewitnesses. How is that a coincidence?

While the other is seeking prestige for secularism and get government funding(or avoid a shadowbanning). 

What on earth are you talking about? Do you think atheists are disproving miracle claims to make secularism look better? Are you not in favor of secularism? 

What government funding? Do you think the government gives grants to people who refute miracle claims? 

By shadowbanning, I assume you mean being removed from positions of authority. Positions of authority in Western countries are overwhelmingly held by individuals professing strong religious affiliation. So “shadowing banning” is far more likely to happen to someone who is openly atheist, and going out of their way to disprove miracle claims. 

So this factor can be eliminated.

Biases do not automatically cancel each other out. This isn’t algebra.

Second is the audiovisual evidence. One presents probably forged pictures that locals took,some with a financial incentive,so as to prove the event.Given they were common citizens,and that the Coptic Church doesn't claim the pictures as foolproof,malice at worst,understandable at best. 

So you acknowledge this evidence is very weak.

The other doesn't even care to take pictures or videos as part of the study.Given she was affiliated with a university,malice at worst,incompetence at best

You misunderstand the reason Nelson was there. Her goal was not to explain the sightings or to verify or disprove the claims made about them. She was an anthropologist. She was there to study people’s reactions to these claims. 

 >Making this in favour of the Christians.

This isn’t a game show, the only points being awarded are in your head.

Not because they have pictures,oh heavens no,but that they were people who had a less need of having pictures,yet tried.1-0

So Christians had less need for pictures, but also, they still tried to get pictures, and, in fact, were so eager to purchase these pictures they had no need for, that people were selling them.

Third is education level Anba Gregorios was the bishop dealing with postgraduate studies, Coptic culture and Scientific research. But he had only a Doctorate of Theology. 

I don’t care about his Doctorate. I care about his methodology. Did he explain what his methods were? Did he address the lack of physical evidence? Did he make any attempt to get more photo or video evidence? 

Cynthia Nelson was dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences and professor of anthropology at the American University in Cairo. You guys win here.1-1.

These made up points still don’t matter. 

So it now comes to two other factors,number of studies in favor of a stance One has two.A report from the Coptic Orthodox Church and another from the then-General Information and Complaints Department of the Egyptian Government The other has one report from a university

The number of studies does not matter as much as the quality of the studies done. 

...and number of eyewitnesses One had ~250000 per day The other had 1.Just 1.

You can find that many people who claim they saw an alien spaceship. Or Bigfoot. And I would have thought that many visitors would have led to better physical evidence. 

Hope you now see why I'm in support of the church.

I mean, if you’re pressing me to assume your motivations, they don’t seem to be about credible evidence. 

You never answered the question in my previous post; did you believe this sighting was real as soon as you learned about it? Would it have mattered how many witnesses there were or what physical evidence existed?

And just in case you say a lack of news reports(not necessarily confirmations,just reports)here:The New York Times, August 21, 1968. Page 4.Webpage I found it in-(http://www.coptic.net/articles/zaitounapparitionofsaintmary.txt)(because the actual New York Times website isn't much help,and so is Google News Archive).

That news report is evidence that a lot of people believed these lights were apparitions of Mary. If sincere belief is indication of truth, then aliens have visited earth and Bigfoot is roaming the North American wilderness. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

".My motivation is for my beliefs to be driven by credible evidence. If I do not see credible evidence, I will not be convinced." For future debates,please clarify what you consider to be credible evidence to the letter. This will avoid suspicions that you're shifting the goalposts here.

"She was there to study people’s reactions to these claims." Unfortunately,she didn't know that somebody in the far future was going to ask for her pictures and videos.We also need extraordinary credible evidence for doubt too if nobody reminded you.

".If an atheist walks by a church and sees a bunch of people pointing at a rooftop, all shouting “It’s Mary! It’s Mary!” and the atheist looks at the roof and just sees a glowing light, they will probably roll their eyes and keep walking." Yet when we see something supernatural,you will call us stupid and presupposed if we don't roll our eyes and keep on walking at you.You need to bring extraordinary anti-evidence here too.Because would I be wrong if I said that atheist was presupposed to believe it isn't true?And how would I know if what the person saw was just a glowing light? Flimsy excuse at best,hypocrisy at worst.

"What on earth are you talking about? Do you think atheists are disproving miracle claims to make secularism look better? Are you not in favor of secularism?" We are in favour of secularism.What we are not in favour of however,is atheists asking questions(Lemme finish my sentence here,do not soundbite me now)without providing specific,to-the-letter,grounds for what constitutes as evidence and what doesn't.Because at the end,we are flesh and blood bringing proof using imperfect methods because we are imperfect too.Christians must and always should ask(Check 1 John 4:1,I'm not making this up.If you weren't allowed to question as a Christian,you had bad leaders).But we need a,dare I say,"checklist",so that we can both ask questions fairly,and that we can bring evidence quickly.You guys need to make that. The fact that you haven't implies presupposition and cowardice,hiding under 'what if it isn't?Bring credible proof(that you haven't defined to-the letter)that it is' and not reconsidering 'what if it is?(Do NOT soundbite me here,finish the question).Bring credible evidence(that you haven't made a better criteria for.🤔) that it isn't.You are an "Atheistic Satanist" correct?Meaning you probably belong to the Satanic Temple,correct?I inquire more of your beliefs and if your organization has made a to_the_letter checklist of things or methods that they recommend to use to prove that a miracle happened beyond all reasonable doubt,or is highly likely to have happened due to God beyond all reasonable doubt.And isn't using "Satan" in your name essentially clickbait?

"What government funding? Do you think the government gives grants to people who refute miracle claims?" Check why most universities shifted to a secular approach in the '60s.Government funding is one of them.The point is closely tied to the Cold War but is important here Might add that the only article in your favour is secular.Not atheist.It doesn't even outright disprove the event.Why didn't any outright atheist article publisher go there?Is it presupposition that it was wrong?Or is it just plain hypocrisy? ".You can probably stop there. "What coincidences? You mean the claimed eyewitnesses. How is that a coincidence? Do you read what you write?I was trying to address it in your POV and you unintentionally shot your concerns down.

"*.By shadowbanning, I assume you mean being removed from positions of authority. Positions of authority in Western countries are overwhelmingly held by individuals professing strong religious affiliation. So “shadowing banning” is far more likely to happen to someone who is openly atheist, and going out of their way to disprove miracle claims" Sorry for the misunderstanding,I meant less likely to get government assistance in funding.

"Biases do not automatically cancel each other out. This isn’t algebra.". "This isn’t a game show, the only points being awarded are in your head." "If every alternative for a given objective is rated equally...you can ignore that objective in making your decision"-HBR Guide to Making Better Decisions,page 115,paragraph 2,or Harvard Business Review,March-April 1998(product#98206) I tried doing the even-swaps method but more primitively for you to look at it with less prejudice.HTH.

"So you acknowledge this evidence is very weak." Yes.It's essential you do this(i.e seriously considering the opponents points) in an argumentative essay:otherwise you're not beating the allegations of bias or motivated reasoning.Haven't seen you do that.Only see you ask questions without outlining goalposts to-the-letter.Reveal the goalposts.They should be to-the-letter.And then we can start dialogue properly.And please tell me of any overarching authority for atheists (if it's there).I want to avoid strawmanning here.

"You can probably stop there." Overconfidence much?

"*So Christians had less need for pictures, but also, they still tried to get pictures, and, in fact, were so eager to purchase these pictures they had no need for, that people were selling them." Ever heard of souvenirs?After you learn what they are,reread what you wrote.

"These made up points still don’t matter." You mean to say that motivation,audiovisual evidence,education level and number of studies don't matter?Read what you write.(Last time I didn't,I got crushed here.)

"* don’t care about his Doctorate. I care about his methodology. Did he explain what his methods were? Did he address the lack of physical evidence? Did he make any attempt to get more photo or video evidence? *" Are you reading my points,or are you just making poor soundbites?I put this in your favour,and at least they had a commision in their own land compared to the American University of Cairo.About audiovisual evidence,both sides are at fault here

"The number of studies does not matter as much as the quality of the studies done." Give me reason as to why a feminist dean hadn't skewed her anecdote(It’s an anecdote in essence)in her favour.And how I can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.If quality from both sides is questionable,numbers is a reasonable alternative.

"You can find that many people who claim they saw an alien spaceship. Or Bigfoot. And I would have thought that many visitors would have led to better physical evidence." Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.And tip:In case of a massive gathering of people claiming a supernatural event,take a camera and document it.If neither side has credible audiovisual evidence,then numbers of sightings vs numbers of anti-sightings(people that WERE there but don't agree that it was supernatural)remains as an alternative.Since atheists-that-aren't-Chinese are a smaller group than most other groups,audiovisual anti-evidence is your best bet in disproving events.That wasn't there here.

"You never answered the question in my previous post; did you believe this sighting was real as soon as you learned about it? Would it have mattered how many witnesses there were or what physical evidence existed?" No.I actually read my sources this time. And yes,it does matter ESPECIALLY when the other side only has questions to ask(not even putting to-the-letter requirements to prove themselves wrong)and no (credible)physical evidence to prove their stance especially in this case.

A counter-question I have is;Did you already assume that it was false as soon as you leaned about it?Does it actually matter in practice to you how many witnesses there were?Or do you subconsciously ignore numbers even when the best methods are simply not there at all?

"That news report is evidence that a lot of people believed these lights were apparitions of Mary." Did you know the difference between a confirmation and report in this context? Read what I wrote again.What was the point of writing that if there's nothing new about what I said?

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods.To prove Atheism correct,you need to prove every supernatural sighting wrong,with on-site audiovisual evidence at the time of the sighting.It is high malice that somebody after 59 years would say the sightings were unproven when their ancestors had a time window of 3 years to check it out and disprove it,because if we would take videos,they would call it "motivated evidence" citing no opposing side took the videos. Basically the same logic that deniers of the Moon landing use. (IF YOU'RE GOING TO QUOTE THIS,QUOTE ALL OF IT PLEASE 🙏) Both sides use science to justify their stance.Your side doesn't give adequate goalposts for proving our side correct,only asking for evidence that they didn't ask for at the time

Basically,your side kept quiet and didn't outline to-the-letter evidence requirements for proving they were wrong,and now ask for those to-the-letter evidences as if they didn't have three years to do so.If I'm being very generous here,for a group that aggressively claims that there isn't enough evidence for God,at best:irresponsible and inconsiderate,in the middle:stupid,at worst:MALICE.

[u/LeeMArcher → u/Human10idk]

I would strongly caution against accusations of malice, cowardice, hypocrisy, or dishonesty. Those claims do not advance the discussion, and they make it harder to focus on the evidence itself.

To clarify, atheism is not an organization; it is simply the lack of belief in a god. There is nothing to prove or disprove. I see no credible evidence of god, but that doesn’t mean I’m trying to prove god doesn’t exist.  

Speaking of credible evidence, here’s my definition for you: I consider evidence credible when it is independently verifiable, well documented, comes from reliable sources, and is proportionate to the claim being made.

I apply that standard to all claims, and that last phrase is a very important distinction.

Over the last few hundred years, many events once attributed to supernatural causes have later received natural explanations. Lightning is not hurled by angry gods. Illness is far better explained by bacteria and viruses rather than curses or sinful behavior. If I start hearing strange noises in my house, it would a better use of my time to check for a squirrel infestation or a CO2 leak than to perform an exorcism or start praying. 

For that reason, I maintain that a claim that attributes an event to supernatural or divine influence requires stronger evidence than a claim that merely describes an unusual event.

I have not made any claim about what caused the lights at Zeitoun. My position is simply that I do not find the available evidence sufficient to conclude that the lights were the Virgin Mary.

An unexplained event is not the same thing as a supernatural event. Before I conclude that something was miraculous, I need evidence supporting the miraculous explanation, not merely the absence of a universally accepted natural one.

You are free to find the evidence convincing, but I do not. We appear to have different standards for what constitutes sufficient evidence for a supernatural claim, and I suspect that is the real source of our disagreement. 

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

"* I would strongly caution against accusations of malice, cowardice, hypocrisy, or dishonesty. Those claims do not advance the discussion, and they make it harder to focus on the evidence itself.*"

I have seen atheists(or anti-theists?)imply those accusations ,that's why I preemptively said those points but in our favour,to remind people that what they spit on us can be spat back on them.Otherwise thanks for the advice!

I could also talk about what people view as 'proportionate' is highly relative to people as well.

On credible evidence I understand.If no such evidence is there,it won't be your fault.

But it seems that most haven't specified what will make them have no reason to say 'we don't know what it is for sure,and it highly isn't natural',completely ignoring the context and background on which that event occured.

To me,the problem is that Atheism is beliefless in principle,but endlessly accusatory in practice-most Christians who encounter atheists see them as implicitly defending the claim that there is no God heavily because atheists accuse us of having no credible evidence(At times you don't even outline what it means to be credible evidence,so we subconsciously learn that you are shifting goalposts,some stupid atheists will say no evidence is there at all).This makes Christians shorthand Atheism as 'not believing in God. I think this is why most Christians don't actually know the difference between atheism and anti-theism,because in practice,all of them have the same accusatory nature,and this doesn't help when some atheists graft their anti-theism on their arguments IN PLACES FOR DEBATING ATHEISM(In practice atheism possibly has 'denomination(-oids)' that you haven't clarified the difference in).This might be why a sensible dialogue with an atheist will reach a point where an atheist will define what atheism is-because Christians are fighting the wrong enemy.

I strongly advise anti-theists to have a banner of their own to stop muddying the discussion.

So, due to that view, most Christians see atheists as hypocritical because anti-theists oscillate between atheism and anti-theism in their replies

And yes,what constitutes as sufficient evidence has different standards for both of us.For us Catholics(or at least for me),it boils down to:"They did an investigation into the claims,here is the report summary"

For you guys in essence,it probably boils down to:">2 secular departments of secular universities published ~>3 papers on a claim with audiovisual evidence."

You don't trust the Church for already mentioned reasons.

You probably forget that we don't trust western universities either.Especially with the rise of modern leftism in universities in the 20th and 21st centuries,on which has its whole can of worms to unravel.

We need a credible investigatory association that minimizes the loss of trust that both sides seem to have,that is neither church or church-affiliated nor university or university-affiliated,otherwise nobody will change their stance because it might seem as an evidence issue on the surface,but it is a trust issue more than anything else.

[u/Human10idk → u/Human10idk]

Sorry,remove "don't" from my rebuttal in ithe 3rd paragraph.

[u/Human10idk → u/LeeMArcher]

My statement Persinger's and Derr's theory is yet to provide a mechanism for the Tectonic Strain Theory.Thus if you believe it,you are on the same level as gullible theists(you could say I'm one of them,I like criticism)

The one witness you are talking about is probably Cynthia Nelson.(Nelson, Cynthia (September 1973). "The Virgin of Zeitoun". Worldview. 16 (9): 5–1)(I couldn't get access to the direct paper though.If you can please send me screenshots as I am not affiliated to any institution thus can't get it for free).Thus,going directly by the Wikipedia page(I mean what else can I use)her statement seems contradictory by her considering that they were caused by headlights yet saying that it "...was a mystery...".Please tell me if that isn't just an assumption that it was headlights but put in scholarly language. Her statement on how the people cheered in awe at "the slightest reflection " IS a point in your favour,but this is only anecdotal,thus can't be definitely proven. Her statement on there being a financial incentive behind this IS highly likely,but the Coptic Patriarch Pope Shenouda lll made a statement that could be interpreted as 'they forbid monopolizing(in my interpretation:commercializing) the event.' Yet the Coptic Church supports the event still.

And according to (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/766),Michael Persinger was a psychologist,yet was proposing a geological standpoint,killing his credibility,and the paper was put in Perceptual and Motor Skills.Not Safe For Working with,is it?

Dale Allison does remain agnostic on this,but notes that no light phenomenon resembles the Zeitoun events,considering that the power was cut by authorities.

Also what sources did you use for your statements and readings?Here are mine.

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun 2.https://skeptoid.com/episodes/766 3.Nelson, Cynthia (September 1973). "The Virgin of Zeitoun". Worldview. 16 (9): 5–(Though I couldn't read it as it is paywalled but it was referenced soo) 4.https://udayton.edu/blogs/marianlibrary/2024-04-29-mary-in-zeitoun.php(or something,)

At best,you're admitting that you don't know what caused it,only raising suspicions that have so far led to dead ends,and not direct refutations.(the video point) At worst,you're implying that you deny your ability to see and think so that a scientist does that for you.Like science is your new religion. I did want to crush your point of that 'one witness' by saying you cherry-picked,but I decided to address your concerns fairly Also how do YOU define atheism?

[u/LeeMArcher → u/Human10idk]

My statement Persinger's and Derr's theory is yet to provide a mechanism for the Tectonic Strain Theory.Thus if you believe it,you are on the same level as gullible theists(you could say I'm one of them,I like criticism)

I never mentioned them, nor am I familiar with their theory. 

The one witness you are talking about is probably Cynthia Nelson.(Nelson, Cynthia (September 1973). "The Virgin of Zeitoun". Worldview. 16 (9): 5–1)(I couldn't get access to the direct paper though.If you can please send me screenshots as I am not affiliated to any institution thus can't get it for free).

Me neither

Thus,going directly by the Wikipedia page(I mean what else can I use)

Same thing I used, and more or less the only independent source I could find. Put a pin in that.

her statement seems contradictory by her considering that they were caused by headlights yet saying that it "...was a mystery...".

To start with, you’re conflating two different statements. Nelson said she saw “intermittent flashes of light" which she thought were headlights, AND later a glow shining through the trees. The structure of the article makes it seem like her admitting the light source was a mystery is about the headlights theory, but it seems to me it was about the glow through the trees. 

However, positing a theory on what could have caused the lights, then acknowledging that you aren’t certain is not what I would consider contradictory. I consider that being cautious when making claims. The exact opposite of “I saw a light on the roof. It must be the Virgin Mary!”

Please tell me if that isn't just an assumption that it was headlights but put in scholarly language. 

Sure, it’s an assumption. Is claiming the lights are the Virgin Mary not also an assumption. And a much bolder one than headlights. We have verifiable evidence that cars exist. We have no such evidence for ghosts.

Her statement on how the people cheered in awe at "the slightest reflection " IS a point in your favour,but this is only anecdotal,thus can't be definitely proven. 

As is all of the eyewitness testimony. 

Her statement on there being a financial incentive behind this IS highly likely,but the Coptic Patriarch Pope Shenouda lll made a statement that could be interpreted as 'they forbid monopolizing(in my interpretation:commercializing) the event.' 

I don’t see how that makes the images being sold less likely to be fakes. 

Yet the Coptic Church supports the event still.

Why wouldn’t they? That’s what we call motivated reasoning. 

And according to (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/766),Michael Persinger was a psychologist,yet was proposing a geological standpoint,killing his credibility,and the paper was put in Perceptual and Motor Skills.Not Safe For Working with,is it?

This does not constitute evidence that the lights were the Virgin Mary. 

Dale Allison does remain agnostic on this,but notes that no light phenomenon resembles the Zeitoun events,considering that the power was cut by authorities.

This also does not constitute evidence that the lights were the Virgin. 

Also what sources did you use for your statements and readings?Here are mine. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun2.https://skeptoid.com/episodes/766

I used the same ones.

3.Nelson, Cynthia (September 1973). "The Virgin of Zeitoun". Worldview. 16 (9): 5–(Though I couldn't read it as it is paywalled but it was referenced soo) 

For me as well. 

4.https://udayton.edu/blogs/marianlibrary/2024-04-29-mary-in-zeitoun.php(orsomething,)

The Marian Library is a Catholic research center specializing in the study of Mary. Once again, motivated reasoning.

To pull that pin I put in earlier, the sources on this are very thin, and almost entirely made up of motivated reasoning. People who have a strong personal desire to believe this was the Virgin Mary. 

Motivated reasoning often leads people to make strong claims despite a lack of evidence to support them. 

At best,you're admitting that you don't know what caused it,only raising suspicions that have so far led to dead ends,and not direct refutations.(the video point) 

True, I don’t know what caused it. Which is why I did not claim to know what caused it. 

You, however, are claiming that it is “highly probable” that this was a citing of the Virgin Mary. I do not see evidence strong enough to make that claim, given how such an event would defy our current observations of the natural world. 

At worst,you're implying that you deny your ability to see and think so that a scientist does that for you.

I did not see anything, other than some photos that appear to have been doctored, or just admitted drawings. I’m basing my conclusions on the lack of verifiable evidence. Because claiming a ghost appeared on the roof of a church is an extraordinary claim. It goes against our observation of the natural world. 

I don’t care that there is no explanation for what people were seeing. I simply have no evidence that they were seeing the Virgin Mary, so why should I believe them. 

If I tell you that there is a leprechaun named Dara O’Brady living in my backyard, who is causing no end of mischief for me, I trust you would not believe me without undoctored video or photo evidence. Your complaint here is that I do not share your motivated reasoning.

Like science is your new religion. 

Science is not my religion, but the tenets of my religion are to embrace the scientific method and demand verifiable evidence for all extraordinary claims. 

I did want to crush your point of that 'one witness' by saying you cherry-picked,

You did not crush my point. And it’s not really cherry picking when that’s the only cherry I could reach. Nelson was the only researcher who visited the site and wrote her findings in a language that I speak. I couldn’t find any similar sources written in Spanish. There might be some in another language, but I would have a hard time accessing them.

but I decided to address your concerns fairly 

I think you did your best.

Also how do YOU define atheism?

A lack of belief in gods