Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Orlanth wrote:


Conversely there are a large number of accounts, some backed up by independent journalist witnesses to show that something un-natural is occurring in a large number of Exorcisms. I have only known one exorcist, who practices mostly in Indonesia and he had some nasty experiences.

Our band chaplain in high school was a former Vatican exorcist who had worked in Africa. He refused to talk about his experiences other than to hope no one has to go through it. Him being a Jesuit and thus more secular/scientific leaning than most Catholic priests(at least in my experience of the various orders) made it all the more telling about the nature of what does/can go on during the ritual.

 Iranna wrote:
This is just disrespectful.

Of course, I am neither condoning WBC's actions nor defending them. I find them a vile group of human beings.

However, I find it hard to stomach that a group could be so disrespectful to the dead.

Iranna.

Actually I have no problem with this since the WBC has been disrespectful of the dead ever since they started protesting at the funerals of service men and women and those that have died in disasters. It's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.

Orlanth, it is silly to believe things without evidence (and insane to believe things there are loads of evidence against.) That's really what it boils down to.

 Orlanth wrote:


Yep, your right, its no biggie. We are talking 18 centuries ago; and even that was mostly a class based rebellion rather than a religious based one.

Well it is a biggie. The fall of the Han Dynasty brought about 200+ years of political instability in China. Hundreds of thousands, or millions, died. How long ago it happened is irrelevant to the question of did it happen, and most religious wars aren't solely about religion. The Muslim Conquest, and the Crusades for that matter, were at least in part about large groups of men with nothing better to do with their time.

No, Crimson; that's Human nature.

 Orlanth wrote:
It also over-relies on the myth that scientific thought is unified, and entirely rational when it is not.

No, it doesn't. In fact it specifically notes that scientific thought is not unified.

 Crimson wrote:
Orlanth, it is silly to believe things without evidence (and insane to believe things there are loads of evidence against.) That's really what it boils down to.

Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.

However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.

I could talk more about evidence like phenomena like tongues and testimonies of changed lives, but its is easier to just
say. Find out for yourself. If you want to find God, you can. If you don't want to find God, you won't. Everything else is just detail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It also over-relies on the myth that scientific thought is unified, and entirely rational when it is not.

No, it doesn't. In fact it specifically notes that scientific thought is not unified.

Where does it?
Welcome back to the mosh pit dogma.

Anyway, a closer look at the short piece and why it is unfairly misrepresentative:.


03:09 - 03:19
The assumption that medical knowledge is universal, things are either incontrovertably medicine or bs based on scientific concensus.
This flies in the face of actual reality of how medical science and above all the pharmaceutical industry works.

04:25 - 04:40
Anti-spiritual message dressed up as scientific consensus. Anything spiritual is definitively either a deception or a mental illness.

05:46 - 05:54
An assumption of scientific consensus and a misrepresentation of faith all in one. It also clings to the dogma that science and faith are mutually exclusive.

05:54 - 05:59
The dogma that anyone claiming a scientific viewpoint is inherently open minded and rational. The pissing contests over acceptance of scientific viewpoints (let alone other viewpoints) are airbrushed over. In hard reality people in science do not easily or often change their minds over new evidence, in fact it is often resisted because of preferred interpretations often for egotistical reasons.

07:15 - 07:30
Making broad assumptions on a mentality behind opposing viewpoints irregardless of individual circumstances. The doctrine that those with a faith choice have such choices due to base fears, and that the alternative is inherently superior on the grounds that it lacks submission to such fears.

07:44 - 08:00
The assumption that the natural order is mutually exclusive with faith, that we can have an open minded awe of the universe or a closed minded faith based view of the universe. It ignores the choice of enjoying an open minded view of the universe and an appreciation of God.

 Orlanth wrote:
. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence

Is there really?

------------------------------------

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence

Is there really?

Why the facepalm.
Most rational people who claim an atheist viewpoint say they have not been personally convinced by the evidence provided..
Your faith in there being no God must be blind indeed to just laugh so.

They should have hired a Mormon group to baptize her as a full Mormon in death.

Also, this just in- scientists have finally admitted that they dug into the Earth's crust to plant fake bones to claim as dinosaurs. To this date all paleontologists and their students remain excellent actors, much to their credit.

This sucks, as a very funny thread just devolved into a religious debate. Aren't there already a bunch of those somebody can be a thread necromancer of? This one is for making fun of the WBC, those silly chaps.

 Orlanth wrote:

Why the facepalm.

Because you say that while there is no proof there is plenty of evidence. There is no evidence, if there was then that would be proof. All there is is faith (which by its nature is intangible) and pure chance.

This is far from the first time that you have been fighting this losing battle on these boards, is there any need to drag yet another thread down this well trodden path?

 Orlanth wrote:

Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.

However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.

There is just as much 'evidence'* for Zeus, Quetzalqoatl, Shiva and many other deities and supernatural creatures people have believed in various times and still do. These people were and are just as sincere in their belief as you are, many of them had similar certainty as you do, they even had might have visions or other such 'spiritual experiences'. Yet all of these beliefs cannot be true. In theory some might, but as there is no reliable way to determine which ones, there's no reason to assume that any of them are.

* that is: hearsay and legends.

Quetzalqoatl

So you're saying we can stop sacrificing people to ensure the sun keeps rising? Damn it, now what am I gonna do with all these hearts...

 LordofHats wrote:

So you're saying we can stop sacrificing people to ensure the sun keeps rising? Damn it, now what am I gonna do with all these hearts...

I think you better keep sacrificing just in case. After all, we really cannot know for sure that Quetzalqoatl isn't the one true god!

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Why the facepalm.

Because you say that while there is no proof there is plenty of evidence. There is no evidence, if there was then that would be proof. All there is is faith (which by its nature is intangible) and pure chance.

This is far from the first time that you have been fighting this losing battle on these boards, is there any need to drag yet another thread down this well trodden path?

Because evidence has been presented, and the same mantta comes back: There is no evidence.
This is because no matter what evidence is found it will be blanket denied by those who would rather prefer to assume there is no evidence.


It is on my to reiterate at least one piece of evidence because I claim to know some, but in brief this time because any espostulation is likely to be hand waved away anyway as before. Though no logical reason for the rejection was offered then as I expect now :

The book of Deuteronomy, written well around three thousand years ago writes about a seven fold punishment of Israel. This when cross referenced to another text in Isaiah directly to the date of the rebuilding of Jerusalem two and a half millenia ago in the Jewish religious calendar comes to the exact date in 1948 when Israel was refounded.
The Bible writes about events occurring at their appointed time even generations later and refers to some like the rebuilding of the Temple. This one directly referred to in Scripture was fulfilled in living memory two and a half millennia later but on exactly the appointed day. It was a global event requiring even a vote in the UN to establish, yet it occurred anyway exactly on schedule.
How could a millennia old prophesy do that, and one that was overlooked until understood in the 1970's, the date for the founding of Israel was not set for this purpose, in fact the legislators appeared to be completely ignorant of the significance of the date.
This provides no proof, but does show evidence that God, via the Bible, might have had some input in this process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.

However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.

There is just as much 'evidence'* for Zeus, Quetzalqoatl, Shiva and many other deities and supernatural creatures people have believed in various times and still do. These people were and are just as sincere in their belief as you are, many of them had similar certainty as you do, they even had might have visions or other such 'spiritual experiences'. Yet all of these beliefs cannot be true. In theory some might, but as there is no reliable way to determine which ones, there's no reason to assume that any of them are.

* that is: hearsay and legends.

Show me one fulfilled prophesy from either of those gods, or any other.
Find me anyone who claims to have been raised from the dead or healed in their names.
Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.


*Visions Beyond the Veil.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Why the facepalm.

Because you say that while there is no proof there is plenty of evidence. There is no evidence, if there was then that would be proof. All there is is faith (which by its nature is intangible) and pure chance.

This is far from the first time that you have been fighting this losing battle on these boards, is there any need to drag yet another thread down this well trodden path?

Because evidence has been presented, and the same mantta comes back: There is no evidence.
This is because no matter what evidence is found it will be blanket denied by those who would rather prefer to assume there is no evidence.


It is on my to reiterate at least one piece of evidence because I claim to know some, but in brief this time because any espostulation is likely to be hand waved away anyway as before. Though no logical reason for the rejection was offered then as I expect now :

The book of Deuteronomy, written well around three thousand years ago writes about a seven fold punishment of Israel. This when cross referenced to another text in Isaiah directly to the date of the rebuilding of Jerusalem two and a half millenia ago in the Jewish religious calendar comes to the exact date in 1948 when Israel was refounded.
The Bible writes about events occurring at their appointed time even generations later and refers to some like the rebuilding of the Temple. This one directly referred to in Scripture was fulfilled in living memory two and a half millennia later but on exactly the appointed day. It was a global event requiring even a vote in the UN to establish, yet it occurred anyway exactly on schedule.
How could a millennia old prophesy do that, and one that was overlooked until understood in the 1970's, the date for the founding of Israel was not set for this purpose, in fact the legislators appeared to be completely ignorant of the significance of the date.
This provides no proof, but does show evidence that God, via the Bible, might have had some input in this process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.

However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.

There is just as much 'evidence'* for Zeus, Quetzalqoatl, Shiva and many other deities and supernatural creatures people have believed in various times and still do. These people were and are just as sincere in their belief as you are, many of them had similar certainty as you do, they even had might have visions or other such 'spiritual experiences'. Yet all of these beliefs cannot be true. In theory some might, but as there is no reliable way to determine which ones, there's no reason to assume that any of them are.

* that is: hearsay and legends.

Show me one fulfilled prophesy from either of those gods, or any other.
Find me anyone who claims to have been raised from the dead or healed in their names.
Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.


*Visions Beyond the Veil.

Orlanth, your fighting the good fight and I'm with you on this, but something I have learned long ago is that even if people were to have an undeniable Angel come down and tell them it was all true they wouldn't neccessarily believe. Look at everything that happened with the Israelites in the desert and still they returned to idols. Balem is another good example.

One person's miracle is another person's law of averages being bucked.

 Zathras wrote:


Actually I have no problem with this since the WBC has been disrespectful of the dead ever since they started protesting at the funerals of service men and women and those that have died in disasters. It's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.

Whilst true, people shouldn't engage in a case of tit for tat. It solves nothing and will only lead in escalating the situation.

I would say that in a case involving morons such as this, ignore them and they'll die down.

Iranna.

 Orlanth wrote:
Why is belief categorically absurd? Religion can bring value to life.

You're missing the point. The point here is that satanism is just as absurd or reasonable as other religions, and it is unfair to single it out for criticism. The reason "everyone" agrees that satanism is ridiculous is that it's a small minority that doesn't have the social power of major religions and is therefore a safe target, not because the beliefs of satanism are any more absurd than the alternatives.

PS: satanism can bring value to life too.

I recommend a look at C.S. Lewis (not a spoonfed unthinking imbecile) book Mere Christianity, explaining his rational conversion experience.

Actually "spoonfed unthinking imbecile" is a pretty good description of C.S. Lewis. His so-called "rational arguments" are incoherent nonsense. They're great if you already want to believe and just need a bit of support so you can tell yourself that it's a good idea, but as an attempt at real justification they're entirely unconvincing.

It's an easy out because it allows you to handwave away religion by saying 'its all rubbish' its somewhat harder to try and say why, doing so absolves you of having to reason your own response and is frankly somewhat hypocritical.

I can easily give you the "why", I was just avoiding yet another "why Christianity is absurd" debate because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making: that you can't call satanism "silly" or "irrational" without applying the same criticism to other religions.

Besides most of Dakka can handle religious debate.

I didn't say anything about not handling debate, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing blatant insults against satanism that wouldn't be acceptable against other groups.

The miraculous occurs, but doesn't get airtime because the conclusions from an admission it exists challenges worldviews.

Seriously? You really think that in a country where christianity has a solid majority and public statements of belief are almost mandatory if you want to have any power in society people are afraid to report "miracles" because it would challenge worldviews?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.

Probably because the "Judeo-Christian belief system" is so vague about heaven that pretty much anything could be interpreted as being a vision of it.

 Iranna wrote:

 Zathras wrote:


Actually I have no problem with this since the WBC has been disrespectful of the dead ever since they started protesting at the funerals of service men and women and those that have died in disasters. It's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.

Whilst true, people shouldn't engage in a case of tit for tat. It solves nothing and will only lead in escalating the situation.

I would say that in a case involving morons such as this, ignore them and they'll die down.

Iranna.

I put what the Satanists down to legitimate protest and is proportionate to what WBC has done in the past.
They did not dig up the grave or deface the memorial, they had two girls kiss over it on camera and had a ritual.
It would be better to highlight whether it caused offense to the priest and congregation of any local community which includes this cemetary.
As I dont know where the grave is, whether it is on municipal ground or the grounds of a church or not, so cannot say, but if those are church grounds.the local priest ought to put in an official complaint at thuis form of trespass.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


You're missing the point. The point here is that satanism is just as absurd or reasonable as other religions, and it is unfair to single it out for criticism. The reason "everyone" agrees that satanism is ridiculous is that it's a small minority that doesn't have the social power of major religions and is therefore a safe target, not because the beliefs of satanism are any more absurd than the alternatives.

PS: satanism can bring value to life too.

I have throughout this thread refrained from making any comments on the quality of religion or religious experience provided by Satanism, it is not relevant to the thread..

 Peregrine wrote:

Actually "spoonfed unthinking imbecile" is a pretty good description of C.S. Lewis. His so-called "rational arguments" are incoherent nonsense.

Says you. Unthinking imbeciles don't tend to hold academic seats at Oxford and Cambridge University, however perhaps you claim to know better.

 Peregrine wrote:

I can easily give you the "why", I was just avoiding yet another "why Christianity is absurd" debate because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making: that you can't call satanism "silly" or "irrational" without applying the same criticism to other religions.
I didn't say anything about not handling debate, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing blatant insults against satanism that wouldn't be acceptable against other groups.

Curious you defend Satanism, you show not a jot of concern if other religions are critiqued and in fact join in wholeheartedly.
However there has been no bash at Satanism on this thread. There isn't any real need.

 Peregrine wrote:

Seriously? You really think that in a country where christianity has a solid majority and public statements of belief are almost mandatory if you want to have any power in society people are afraid to report "miracles" because it would challenge worldviews?

Actually, yes. Sometimes the strongest critics of spiritual Christianity are those in religious authority. Jesus himself experienced this frequently, St Francis was himself persecuted by the church, and was better received in Moslem lands than in Rome.
The power of God makes people uncomfortable, it shows up those who use religion as a tool for power than a blueprint for holy living. In the UK its worse we still have politicians make statements of faith at elections times but they severely hack at the church in between. Blair was especially good at that.
Point is miracles might be less desirable to some Christians than you might suspect. If I can find ordained priests that caution fervently against asking for Charismata, how can we expect the rest of 'Christian' society to react.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.

Probably because the "Judeo-Christian belief system" is so vague about heaven that pretty much anything could be interpreted as being a vision of it.

Ok. while not all such testimonies include meeting Jesus but a lot of them do. That in itself is nothing remotely vague. Besides most of the descriptors of heaven and hell - a number of NDE's are damnation experiences - are emotive, though heaven is repeatedly envisaged as filled with exceptionally bright but somehow not harmful light.
Still I am yet to hear of one that involves crossing the Styx by ferry, or of having one heart weighed against a feather.

 Orlanth wrote:

Still I am yet to hear of one that involves crossing the Styx by ferry, or of having one heart weighed against a feather.

I'm sure those were exceedingly common in ancient Egypt.

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Still I am yet to hear of one that involves crossing the Styx by ferry, or of having one heart weighed against a feather.

I'm sure those were exceedingly common in ancient Egypt.

And Greece.

 Crimson wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Still I am yet to hear of one that involves crossing the Styx by ferry, or of having one heart weighed against a feather.

I'm sure those were exceedingly common in ancient Egypt.

How sure, found any recorded testimonies of Egyptian (or Greek) NDE's?

 Orlanth wrote:

How sure, found any recorded testimonies of Egyptian (or Greek) NDE's?

No idea but a quick search found some Buddist ones.
http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter224/ndethai1.htm

God has spoken to me.

I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.

So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.

It's TRUE, HE told me.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
God has spoken to me.

I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.

So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.

It's TRUE, HE told me.

It's a miricle! Follow the Cornish Pasty!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
God has spoken to me.

I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.

So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.

It's TRUE, HE told me.

The High Elves told you?

 Orlanth wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
God has spoken to me.

I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.

So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.

It's TRUE, HE told me.

The High Elves told you?

You question the pointy eared, big helmed and girly harbingers of His Word?


HERESY!

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.

Now, in any case I'm not a religious type (although I am open to the potential for magic supernatural beings, just not omniscient, benevolent ones) and as such am skeptical of all tales of JESUS MAGIC ,etc, but she is a very well-traveled, kind woman and I don't think she'd be likely to make something like that up or lie about it. (Of course, it's equally possible that they simply caught a disease of some form and that no magic, Satanic, Jesusy or otherwise was involved, but heck, this is a thread about black magic).

Oh, so you think that a voodoo curse and a disease are equally possible causes of the illness? In that case I have some magic stones that protect from black magic I'd like to sell to you on very reasonable price!

Nope. Like I say, I don't really believe in magic/religion etc, but I don't discount the possibility for its existence. Most likely, it was just illness, and I am very, very skeptical of the claim, but as an agnostic maltheist I still pay it some heed, because hey, you never can be too sure. Also I find it kinda arrogant that someone would think that their religion is immune to "the evul magikz". For example, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that if he does exist that I am immune to his power simply by the magic of atheism.

I watched the Ghost and Mr. Chicken as a child and Ive never been attacked by a ghost since then!

I watch it every year on Halloween just to make sure I have a proper dose of Don Knotts in my system to keep the ghosts away!

Like Nostradamus, the bible isn't predictive. It's far easier to look at a text in hindsight and then pick out a few things with that bias and convince yourself that it was predictive. How many specific things predicted beforehand with reliable dates have there been? What usually happens is that many many predictions are made in a bit of a dart board approach and even then they are vague enough to be reinterpreted afterwards to make it seem they were more accurate and specific than they really were.

It's so easy to invent hidden codes and predictions in a large body of text that such approaches have been used to 'prove' that novels like Moby Dick predicted historical events. Which is obviously rubbish, but patterns are easy to see when you stare hard enough and have the bias to want them to be there.