Indians blinded looking for vision of Mary
KOTTAYAM, India, March 11 (UPI) -- Reports in India of a miraculous image of the Virgin Mary in the sky have led about 50 people to blind themselves by staring at the sun.The visions are said to appear over the former home of a hotel owner in the Kottayam area in southeast India, The Daily Telegraph reported. One hospital in the district reported 48 patients had been admitted with burned retinas since last week, the British newspaper reported.
Churches have warned their congregations that looking at the sun will cause permanent blindness and have told them the supposed miracle is not one.
Before moving out, the hotel owner reportedly had also claimed to have statues of the Virgin Mary that cried honey and bled oils and perfumes.
Story Here.
11 comments:
Did you read the article that was recently on the web that proposed Moses was actually *high on drugs* when he supposedly witness such craziness.
btw......I think I've moving from being an Agnostic, to an Atheist.
What doesn't kill 'em*...is ok with Darwin.
*before reproducing, that is.
Anon: Agnosticism is for cowards. Definitely not JUST.
Imipolex:
Nice point.
Wasn't there an epsiode on the TV version of the Ira Glass show This American Life where people stood out in the desert taking Polaroids of the sunlight and claiming to see Jesus, Mary, and angels? This seems like the same "overexposure to light" phenomenon makes the brain grasp for meaning and create context where there is none in the patterns of light. Simply madness that these people are blinding themselves over such a phenomenon.
I have to disagree with Spiros on his view of Agnosticism. If a belief gives you fluency of thought and is not harmful to your neighbours, there is no harm in such beliefs akin to a belief that a daily vitamin will somehow make you healthier than not taking one as a blanket statement.
Santa: I reject your Jamesian line. All kinds of false and pernicious beliefs can contribute to "fluency of thought."
I agree with Spiros about the cowardice of the fence-sitters. As me Pappy used to say" "Shit or get off the pot".
More specifically: Agnosticism can be a position distinct from Atheism only if you presume Atheism is true.
Here's why: Let's say Theism is true. Let's also say that if Theism is true, then one must believe in God in order to be saved. If Theism is true, then the Agnostic and Atheist positions are equivalent-- neither believes in God, both are not saved.
Now, of course, the Agnostic will insist that his position *is* different from the Atheists, since he refuses to pronounce on, whereas the Atheist denies, God's existence. But, if Theism is correct, the difference between not pronouncing on God's existence and denying God's existence is a difference that makes no difference. If Theism is true, Atheism and Agnosticism are equivalent.
The difference between Agnosticism and Atheism makes a difference only if we presume that Theism is false. If there's no God who requires belief in God in order to be saved, then there's a difference between not pronouncing and denying. But, in that case, the Agnostic is irrational: he ca maintain that his position is distinct from the Atheist's only by assuming that Theism is false. Thus the Agnostic must pronounce on the issue after all. QEmuthafuckingD.
Spiros: Sorry that you feel the need to denigrate the James line, but it is still valid. Atheism purports to know infallibly that there is no prime mover, god, etc. The agnostic view is one that just simply says, "I don't know if there is or isn't a god, prime mover, or insert object of worship name in here and without more evidence. I am not taking a stance on this issue since there are more important issues in the world to consider that have more evidence to consider both pro and con vis a vis the philosophical stance." Big difference between the two stances.
Santa:
Atheists need not be infallibilists. In fact, it's the agnostic (as you describe him) that holds that belief (either way) is unwarranted in the absence of definitive evidence. The Atheist says, "I believe there's no God, because that's what the best arguments and evidence say"; your agnostic says, "Since there's no definitive proof either way, I'll believe nothing." But believing nothing and believing against are the same position if God exists.
Spiros: There is an error in your argument. There is a world of difference between the philosophical stance of "deferring judgement" or "not taking a stance on the subject until more info is available" which is the agnostic view and the "I believe nothing becuase that is what the best evidence currently says" atheistic view. They are not necessarily equivalent views.
And the view that a potential diety would see both an agnostic view and an atheistic view as equivalent is very flawed as you are assuming a Catholic/Fundamentalist/Moslem view of a deity as opposed to many different religions, sects, and even schools of thought (cf. Aristotle, Taoism)have conceptually of a deity or "first cause" that do not necessarily agree with the characterisation you have made of a potential deity's view of agnostics and atheists being the same.
Post a Comment