The abomination of desolation?

 

Me and another blogger have a kind of love-hate relation to this Adventist YouTube channel, called Scriptures Illustrator. Their anti-Jesuit conspiracist video is actually quite interesting (although I haven´t double-checked all its claims - at least not yet). 

The Jesuit state in Paraguay seems to have been "progressive" since it protected the Natives from slave raiders, but according to the video, the Society of Jesus gladly participated in the slave trade elsewhere, including Japan.

Since the video was produced by an Adventist, the background theme is that the (Catholic) Jesuits were part of a kind of Anti-Christ system which works itself out, slowly but steadfastly, over the course of human history. Until Judgement Day, perhaps?

Make of this content whatever you wish.   

But Iran are the crazy ones?

 

I don´t support the clerical-fascist regime in Iran, obviously, but I´m not the only one who noticed that their propaganda these days sounds almost "rational", while the mentality of the Trump/evangelo-con faithful comes across as much more religious and fundamentalist. A lot of talk about "the war of Gog and Magog" and what have you. J D Vance´s recent statements among UFOs fit the pattern, although they are probably also a diversion from the actual war (the one against the Iranian regime, remember?). And for the record: yes, I know that J D is a Catholic.  

I originally assumed his statement about UFOs being demonic was an AI-generated hoax, but nah, it´s a real interview. Some links below. That being said...who knows? Maybe UFOs are strange somehow. I used to be very skeptical, but now I honestly don´t know. The "transients" seem to be confirmed. Which doesn´t rule out all kinds of deep state shenanigans backstage, of course.

Like this one?

J D Vance says aliens are "demons"

Facebook comment on J D Vance

Fatima pro and con (part 2)

 

ChatGPT continues its discussion on Fatima...

Is Fatima strong or weak evidence compared to other miracle claims?

Short answer: Fátima is usually considered one of the stronger miracle claims in Catholicism—but still contested and not decisive evidence outside that framework.
Where it lands depends a lot on what you think counts as “good evidence.”

Let’s break that down in a grounded, comparative way.

---

🏆 Why Fátima is often seen as strong evidence

🌞 1. Scale and publicity

Compared to most miracle claims, the Miracle of Fátima stands out because:

• Tens of thousands were present
• It was announced in advance
• It was covered by secular media (e.g. O Século)

👉 This is unusual. Most miracles:

• Happen to individuals or small groups
• Aren’t publicly predicted
• Lack independent documentation

Result: Fátima scores high on publicity and documentation.

---

🎯 2. The prediction factor

The children (especially Lúcia dos Santos) said a miracle would occur on a specific date.

👉 Compared to other miracles:

• Lourdes healings → not predicted
• Weeping statues → not predicted
• Near-death experiences → not predicted

Prediction + apparent event = stronger evidential structure

---

👥 3. Mixed audience (not just believers)

Reports came from:

• Devout Catholics
• Skeptics and anticlericals
• Journalists

👉 This matters because many miracle claims happen in:

• Highly controlled religious environments
• Expectation-heavy settings

Fátima still has expectation—but not uniform belief.

---

⚖️ Why it’s still considered weak or inconclusive by skeptics

🔬 1. No objective physical trace

Unlike some other claims:

• No measurable change in the sun
• No lasting physical anomaly
• No independently verifiable physical evidence

👉 Compare with:

• Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano → physical substance (claimed flesh/blood)
• Lourdes → medically investigated healings

Fátima is purely experiential/visual.

---

👁️ 2. Inconsistent reports

Not everyone saw the same thing—or anything at all.

👉 Compared to stronger empirical cases:

• Good evidence usually produces consistent observations across observers

Skeptics say Fátima looks more like:

• A variable perceptual event than a stable external phenomenon

---

🧠 3. Competing natural explanations

Unlike some miracle claims that are harder to model, Fátima has multiple plausible explanations:

• Optical effects from staring at the sun
• Atmospheric distortions
• Crowd psychology

👉 None alone explains everything—but together they form a plausible cumulative alternative.

---

⏳ 4. Vision reports developed over time

As we discussed:

• The apparition descriptions (especially by Lúcia dos Santos) became more detailed later
• Theological elements became clearer over time

👉 This weakens it slightly compared to cases where:

• Documentation is immediate and stable

---

🆚 How Fátima compares to other miracle types

🥇 Stronger than most visionary experiences

Compared to:

• Private visions
• Dreams
• Mystical experiences

👉 Fátima is much stronger because:

• It’s public
• It has many witnesses
• It was predicted

---

🥈 Roughly comparable to Lourdes

Compared to Lourdes:

• Fátima strength: public spectacle + prediction
• Lourdes strength: medically investigated healings

👉 Philosophically:

• Fátima = dramatic but ambiguous perception
• Lourdes = less dramatic but more medically grounded claims

---

🥉 Weaker than the best medical miracles (arguably)

Some Catholic healings (at Lourdes or elsewhere) are:

• Documented medically
• Examined by skeptical doctors
• Declared “inexplicable”

👉 These can be stronger empirically, because:

• They involve objective bodily change, not perception

---

⚠️ Much stronger than folk miracles

Compared to:

• Weeping statues
• Viral “miracle” videos
• Local supernatural claims

👉 Fátima is far more credible due to:

• Historical documentation
• Scale
• Cross-checkable testimony

---

🧭 Bottom line

If you rank miracle claims broadly:

• Weak tier: anecdotal, private, unverifiable
• Middle tier: Fátima-type events (public, but perceptual)
• Stronger tier: medically documented, physically testable cases

👉 So Fátima lands here:

Upper-middle tier: unusually strong for a visionary miracle, but not decisive evidence of the supernatural

---

🧠 The deeper philosophical divide

Fátima is almost a perfect test case for worldview differences:

• If you’re open to divine action in history, it looks impressively structured
• If you require controlled, repeatable, physical evidence, it falls short

Fatima pro and con (part 1)

 

ChatGPT on the pros and cons of Fatima. 

What do skeptics say about Fatima (the Catholic miracle in Portugal)?

The Miracle of Fátima—especially the famous “Miracle of the Sun”—is one of the most discussed religious events of the 20th century. While many Catholics see it as strong evidence of divine intervention, skeptics have offered a range of alternative explanations.

---

🌞 What witnesses reported

On October 13, 1917, tens of thousands gathered near Fátima, Portugal. Many reported:

• The sun appearing to spin, dance, or zigzag
• Sudden color changes
• The sun seeming to plunge toward Earth
• Clothes and ground drying rapidly after rain

But not everyone present saw the same thing—and some saw nothing unusual at all.

---

🔍 Main skeptical explanations

1. Optical effects & eye damage

Skeptics often argue that people were staring directly at the sun, which can create:

• Visual distortions (afterimages, movement illusions)
• Color shifts due to retinal fatigue
• Temporary blindness or shimmering effects

This can make the sun appear to “dance” without actually moving.

👉 This is one of the most widely accepted natural explanations.

---

2. Mass suggestion / expectation

The children (especially Lúcia dos Santos) had predicted a miracle at a specific time and place.

Skeptics say:

• A large crowd gathered expecting something supernatural
• Psychological factors (crowd dynamics, suggestion, excitement) influenced perception
• People interpreted ambiguous visual experiences in line with religious expectations

This is sometimes compared to collective religious experiences elsewhere.

---

3. Atmospheric phenomena

Some propose unusual but natural sky effects:

• Thin clouds or mist diffusing sunlight
• Ice crystals causing halos or color effects
• Rapidly moving cloud layers creating illusion of motion

These could produce strange solar visuals without violating physics.

---

4. Inconsistent testimony

A key skeptical point:

• Reports varied widely (spinning, falling, color changes, or nothing at all)
• The phenomenon was not observed universally, even nearby
• No astronomical observatories recorded solar anomalies

If the sun had physically moved, it would have been seen globally—not just locally.

---

5. Post-event embellishment

Some historians argue:

• Accounts became more dramatic over time
• Early reports were less spectacular than later retellings
• Memory and storytelling shaped the narrative

---

6. Drying clothes explanation

The claim that soaked clothes suddenly dried is sometimes explained by:

• Wind + sunlight after rain
• People overestimating how wet they were
• Psychological exaggeration after a dramatic event

---

🧠 A more nuanced skeptical view

Not all skeptics dismiss everything outright. Some say:

• People genuinely experienced something unusual
• But the cause was likely natural + psychological, not supernatural

This approach tries to respect the sincerity of witnesses while rejecting miraculous explanations.

---

⚖️ The core disagreement

• Believers: A divinely orchestrated public miracle confirming Marian apparitions
• Skeptics: A mix of optics, psychology, and social context

---

If you want, I can also go into the strongest arguments defenders use against these skeptical explanations—that’s where the debate gets really interesting.

Yes, please.

Great—this is where the debate becomes much more interesting. Defenders of the Miracle of Fátima don’t just appeal to faith; they argue that the skeptical explanations fail to account for key features of what happened.

---

🌞 1. “Too many witnesses” for a simple illusion

Defenders emphasize:

• Estimates of 30,000–70,000 people present
• Witnesses included believers, skeptics, journalists, and anticlericals
• Some reports came from miles away

👉 Their argument:
Mass optical illusions can happen—but it’s harder to explain huge, diverse crowds reporting structured, similar phenomena (spinning, descending sun, colors).

---

🧾 2. Contemporary secular reporting

A major point in favor is that non-religious sources documented the event.

For example:

• The Lisbon newspaper O Século (anti-clerical at the time) described extraordinary solar behavior
• Journalists reportedly expected nothing—and were surprised

👉 Defender claim:
This reduces the likelihood that the event was purely religious propaganda or group hallucination.

---

🎯 3. A specific, fulfilled prediction

Months before October 13, the children (especially Lúcia dos Santos) publicly announced:

• A miracle would occur
• At a specific time and place

👉 Defender argument:

• If this were random atmospheric or psychological effects, why did it happen exactly when predicted?
• The timing suggests intentionality, not coincidence

Skeptics respond that expectations shaped perception—but defenders say this doesn’t explain the precision and scale.

---

👀 4. Not everyone looked directly at the sun

To counter the “eye damage” theory:

• Some witnesses claimed to see the phenomenon without staring directly at the sun
• Others described the sun as not painfully bright, allowing prolonged viewing

👉 Defender argument:
If retinal damage were the cause, experiences should be:

• Highly individual
• Not coordinated or structured

But reports often describe organized movement (spinning, zigzagging).

---

🌍 5. Reports from a distance

Some testimonies claim:

• The phenomenon was visible outside the immediate crowd
• Observers miles away reported unusual solar behavior

👉 Defender argument:
This challenges the idea of localized crowd psychology.

(Skeptics question how strong or reliable these distant reports are.)

---

🔬 6. The “physical effects” problem

One of the hardest points for skeptics:

• Wet ground and clothes reportedly became dry very quickly
• Some described a sudden heat-like effect

👉 Defender claim:
Psychological explanations don’t easily account for physical environmental changes.

Skeptics reply with natural drying explanations—but defenders argue the speed and scale were unusual.

---

🧩 7. Consistent core pattern (despite variation)

Defenders admit testimonies differ—but argue:

• Variations are expected in any large crowd
• The core experience is consistent:
  • Sun changes appearance
  • Motion (spin/dance/zigzag)
  • Color phenomena

👉 Their point:
Complete uniformity would actually be more suspicious.

---

🧠 8. “Hallucination doesn’t scale well”

A philosophical objection:

• Hallucinations are typically private and idiosyncratic
• Here we have a shared, structured experience across thousands

👉 Defender conclusion:
This looks less like hallucination and more like a real external phenomenon, even if its nature is debated.

---

⚖️ Where the debate really sits

The disagreement isn’t just about what happened—but about how to interpret unusual events:

• Skeptics:
  Combine smaller natural explanations (optics + expectation + atmosphere)
• Defenders:
  Argue that stacking explanations still fails to fully explain the convergence of:
  • Prediction
  • Scale
  • Structure
  • Physical effects

---

🧭 A deeper layer (often overlooked)

Some philosophers and historians take a middle path:

• Something real and unusual likely occurred
• But interpreting it as a Catholic Marian miracle is an additional step

This separates:

1. The event itself
2. The religious meaning assigned to it

---

If you want, I can go even deeper into:

• How this compares to other mass religious phenomena (like Lourdes or modern apparitions), or
• Whether Fátima is considered strong or weak evidence compared to other miracle claims.

Wisdom

 

Yes, it´s time for a rant about FC again!

I was genuinely shocked when doing on-line research about FC and its derivatives. The technique is *obviously* fake. Even pro-FC´s documentaries can´t hide the fact that the poor autists are being heavily prompted by the facilitators...and often get the wrong answers anyway. Yet, FC is a world-wide movemennt?! Or cult. The implications are staggering.

Your local unfriendly Skeptic association often says that people (ordinary plebs) simply aren´t good observers or reliable eye witnesses. The FC phenomenon confirms this thesis *in freakin´spades*. Thousands of people apparently think they can communicate with their severely autistic children on a daily basis with this technique. And yet it´s all a puppet show and a delusion. It´s not like seeing a Bigfoot in the forest just once. 

This seems to have consequences for how we look at eye witness reports of the supernatural. For instance Fatima. Or the 500 brothers who supposedly saw the risen Christ all at once after his resurrection. Or...anything really.

But then it struck me. The FC cult is secular (there is a New Age version, too, but the mainline FCers seem to be secular). So we have a case where thousands of people see a *natural* phenomenon which simply isn´t there. Which reminds me of C S Lewis´ quip that while most reports of the supernatural are false, most reports about natural events are also false. Indeed! Most things we see are lies. 

But if that´s the case, we can´t be sure that the supernatural isn´t real. Maybe it still lurks somewhere out there...

The quest continues.   

Easter Bunny Ganapati???

 

LOL. It´s April Fool´s Day, so this picture of Ganesha seems appropriate. Note the two ghostly hares at his side. Sometimes Gemini is downright funny. And this was generated a few days ago!

Counterfeit

 

Hard to believe award? The Adventist channel Scriptures Illustrator claims that there is a Satanic Trinity made of Lucifer, Lilith and Asmodeus. The video (which gets tedious after a while) is about a young Christian man in Brazil who sold his soul to this legion of demons, et cetera. Even if taken at face value, very little in this story can´t be given a purely naturalist (psychological) explanation. And that´s that. 

Sista dosan i Paris

 

"Sista dosan i Paris" låter ju som ett aprilskämt (eller en ovanligt hårdkokt deckare), men det verkar faktiskt vara sant. Frankrike har alltså förbjudit snus. Vitt snus, närmare bestämt. Brunt snus verkar vara i en legal gråzon sedan tidigare. Svenskar bosatta i Paris är lite irriterade...

Vitt snus förbjuds i Frankrike

Vitt snus förbjuds från 1 april

Världens största aprilskämt?

 

En moderat mås bland blåsipporna...

Världens största aprilskämt? Varför släpper de inte in SD i regeringen redan nu? Och Centerpartiet räknar kallt med att L och KD kommer att bryta med SD om Tidöpartierna förlorar valet. Vilket inte alls skulle förvåna mig. Undrar förresten hur många av de ombud som röstade mot Mohamsson på det där extrainkallade L-mötet som lämnat partiet? Juuust det...

Moderaterna har alltså lyckats krama ihjäl SD. Tror de, i vart fall. Och "mitten"partierna spelar dubbelt. Som vanligt. Hur det hela kommer att sluta är en öppen fråga. Eller kanske inte.

Det troligaste är att en neo-Tidöregering kommer att bedriva en nyliberal politik kombinerad med pseudo-nationalistisk retorik...och *inte* stoppa invandringen. Med andra ord: som de senaste fyra åren. Varför skulle det bli annorlunda? 

Geezus, måste en viss "baserad" bloggare börja taktikrösta på Vänsterpartiet igen??? April, april. Eller...?   

M släpper in SD i regering om de vinner valet

April Fool?

 

Credit: The Fourth Way

Trump says that NATO is a paper tiger and that Putin, too, knows it. LOL. Yeah, I wonder what could *possibly* have given him that idea...

Time for the Insiders to make their move?