Questioning Religion & the Religious

[Cephus]

But if that is where a true and correct faith leads you, then the answer is no.

Prove your faith is true or correct.

 

[phattonez]

Prove your faith is true or correct.

Since I'm using the Quinque Viae in another thread with you, I'll go a different route here: Fatima Miracle of the Sun.

 

[Cephus]

Since I'm using the Quinque Viae in another thread with you, I'll go a different route here: Fatima Miracle of the Sun.

Funny how nobody else on the planet noticed the sun wandering around the sky... :roll:

 

[phattonez]

Funny how nobody else on the planet noticed the sun wandering around the sky... :roll:

Funny how at least 30,000 people did see it, and it happened exactly when the children of Fatima said that it would.

 

[Adagio]

I think you're missing my point entirely here and like so many other......when you hear "the church"......you instinctively, only see the Catholic Church. I am referring to the Disciples of Christ who first chose to follow his gospel. I'm referring to the true Church of Christ..........not the compromised version from the Nicaean Council. There have always been fringe elements of Christendom, clinging to a Christ-centered doctrine, that did not adhere wholeheartedly to the Roman Catholic church.......long before Martin Luther that is.


Again, you seem to be missing my point entirely. True Christians do not appeal to "church tradition", nor to the "authority" of the church. For a Christian, there is only ONE authority and that is Almighty God himself who chose to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and His ever-present Holy Spirit made known only to those willing to fully accept. Faith is most definitely a personal experience , independent of any knowledge of church tradition. I have worked on missions in remote areas of South America, where the indigenous folk had never had an organized church, seen a bible, and had little or no knowledge of church tradition. I've witnessed their lives given over to faith and changed instantly through Christ's love and God's mercy. Their faith was not dependent on church tradition (of which thaey had no knowledge) but rather a personal experience.:shrug:


Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I'm quite aware of what dogma is; but if you believe that this applies to me or my faith.......you still do not understand the concept of faith.....and you certainly haven't interacted with me enough to suggest that my PERSONAL beliefs are dogmatic.

Can you not get that faith for many is REAL. All of the scholarly writings in the world on the topic of faith and church dogma and tradition can't explain faith on a personal level. You, like so many others, also seem to be hung up on the idea that faith is based on events from the past.....only partly true......you see for those Christians who have real Faith.....Christ is very much alive and working in them on a daily basis. :shrug:
True, but these aren't just "traditions" in the sense that for me they were real events in the life of a PERSONAL savior whom I know intimately. :shrug:


I respect you views but your responses are much too long and rambling....so I will respond to the rest later.

My responses are long enough to complete the reasons behind my critique of what you are saying. Regarding this:...

I think you're missing my point entirely here and like so many other......when you hear "the church"......you instinctively, only see the Catholic Church. I am referring to the Disciples of Christ who first chose to follow his gospel. I'm referring to the true Church of Christ

...I think your being purposefully vague in your response. Peter was a Disciple and was the "Rock" on which Christ's church would be built. By Christs own words the true church was established by Peter. The last I checked the entire Catholic Church is decended from Peter. The Pope wears the shoes of the Fisherman and according to doctrine is the next in direct line to Peter himself. So when you speak of the "true Church of Christ" what are you talking about?

Again, you seem to be missing my point entirely. True Christians do not appeal to "church tradition", nor to the "authority" of the church.

Actually it's you that is missing my point. Try reading what I said again; "And every one of them subscribes to the traditions and authority of the church or whatever authority that gives them this theory of rationality. All beliefs are based on appeals to tradition, but mostly authority. You believe in something for a reason. You might even reject the doctrines of a church. There are many people that reject the dogma of a church, but they still believe in a Deity. It's the authority of the Deity that they submit to and all beliefs are based on appeals to authority.

For a Christian, there is only ONE authority and that is Almighty God himself who chose to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and His ever-present Holy Spirit made known only to those willing to fully accept.

One is enough. As I said, all beliefs are based on appeals to authority. I'm saying that Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. “However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. Is there a part of what I just said that you reject? Here's the problem that you have as I see it; Given the choice between the truth and your belief, which would you choose? Is your belief more important to you than Truth? They aren't necessarily the same thing you know. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true. So, is the search for Truth important to you, or is it more important to hold on to a belief?

Faith is most definitely a personal experience , independent of any knowledge of church tradition.

No matter how personal it is, it's still an appeal to authority. It's a theory of rationality that's been handed to you so that you need not judge the truth for yourself. The authority tells you what is true...and you believe it.

but if you believe that this applies to me or my faith.......you still do not understand the concept of faith.....and you certainly haven't interacted with me enough to suggest that my PERSONAL beliefs are dogmatic.

Of course they're dogmatic. Is there a part of Christian ideology that you reject? If so, which part? If you are a Christian, do you reject the miracles or the resurrection that are foundational to the entire belief? I know of no self-proclaimed Christians that deny those parts of the dogma. And it is dogma. "It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself." If you call yourself a Christian, what part of the dogma do you reject? You should understand that most atheists were Theists at one time. Lots of them were Christians. They simply examined the dogma and found it irrational and without and basis.

Can you not get that faith for many is REAL. All of the scholarly writings in the world on the topic of faith and church dogma and tradition can't explain faith on a personal level. You, like so many others, also seem to be hung up on the idea that faith is based on events from the past.....only partly true......you see for those Christians who have real Faith.....Christ is very much alive and working in them on a daily basis

I understand that you think it's real, but that doesn't make it real. You keep referring to faith on a "personal level" as if this is somehow a more exclusive take on faith. I know of nobody that claims to be a person of faith that doesn't make the same claim. Because it's "personal" nobody can really understand them. That's really ridiculous. All beliefs are appeals to authority. And yes it's also an appeal to tradition. The very idea of holding a belief in a Deity such as Christ is based on a historical account of who he was. It's not an arbitrary thing. You were not ignorant of the historical figure of Christ before you magically became aware of him and his story. The tradition of Christianity revolves around the historical events that convince you of his authority. That's not escapable. Unless you were raised on a desert island, you'd heard the stories, and the stories are the tradition. I'm not here to attack your beliefs. That's really not my intention. For me, this discussion is to clarify where our beliefs come from. Why do we believe the things we believe? They're all appeals to authority and appeals to authority are always invalid. So I'm curious as to why people cling to irrationality. I don't know what the attraction is? I know that religious beliefs all offer a reward and that may justify the belief. They may also offer a threat..(burning in hell) so you'd best believe, or else. That seems completely hypocritical to me. If you're believing something to gain a reward, or to avoid a punishment, your motives are completely selfish and Jesus was selfless. So what does one hope to gain?? Can't you be a good person without hoping to gain something from it?

True, but these aren't just "traditions" in the sense that for me they were real events in the life of a PERSONAL savior whom I know intimately

Oh please. They are integral to the faith. You are living within the traditional views of Christ. You weren't there, so you are putting your faith in, and believing things that happened a priori to your belief. I'm assuming as a Christian you celebrate Christmas, and Easter, perhaps Lent. Maybe more. So they're traditions...they just aren't traditions to you. Is that it?:roll:

 

[Cephus]

Funny how at least 30,000 people did see it, and it happened exactly when the children of Fatima said that it would.

No, you have people *CLAIMING* to have seen it, yet there is no way to demonstrate that it actually happened. There are lots of people alive today who claim to have been abducted by aliens, do you believe them too?

 

[phattonez]

No, you have people *CLAIMING* to have seen it, yet there is no way to demonstrate that it actually happened. There are lots of people alive today who claim to have been abducted by aliens, do you believe them too?

You really see no distinction between a group of otherwise unaffiliated people claiming something extraordinary and a group of people all together at the same time seeing something extraordinary? Btw, you are not going to find 30,000 people claiming to be abducted all at the same time.

 

[Cephus]

You really see no distinction between a group of otherwise unaffiliated people claiming something extraordinary and a group of people all together at the same time seeing something extraordinary? Btw, you are not going to find 30,000 people claiming to be abducted all at the same time.

The problem is, you can't even get sources that agree on how many people saw this thing. Some sources say 30k, some say 70k, some say 100k. You don't have signed affidavits from all of these people and the ones that we do have accounts from, they don't even agree in what they saw. Some saw the sun dancing around in the sky, some saw the sun coming at the Earth. You do realize that had any of these things happened, there would have been profound physical effects on the Earth, right? Add that to the fact that no one else on the planet saw anything remotely similar, no observatories made any observations, the planet wasn't thrown out of orbit, which absolutely would have happened had this event actually taken place, we must come to the conclusion that whatever happened was an illusion, or more likely, a group delusion, and the numbers of people who supposedly saw it likely inflated.

This is what happens when you actually use logic. You ought to give it a shot.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Then the question you need to ask yourself, is this the BEST way, or are there better ways people can achieve the same results?

It's the best way for me.....and who's being harmed in the process of me having faith?

 

[phattonez]

The problem is, you can't even get sources that agree on how many people saw this thing. Some sources say 30k, some say 70k, some say 100k.

So in other words, as I was saying before, at least 30,000.

You don't have signed affidavits from all of these people and the ones that we do have accounts from, they don't even agree in what they saw. Some saw the sun dancing around in the sky, some saw the sun coming at the Earth.

Ha! Who is going to coordinate getting the signed affidavits of 30,000 people? What you ask for is impossible; you're trying to find weak excuses for very strong evidence.

You do realize that had any of these things happened, there would have been profound physical effects on the Earth, right? Add that to the fact that no one else on the planet saw anything remotely similar, no observatories made any observations, the planet wasn't thrown out of orbit, which absolutely would have happened had this event actually taken place, we must come to the conclusion that whatever happened was an illusion, or more likely, a group delusion, and the numbers of people who supposedly saw it likely inflated.

One definition of miracle is a suspension of the laws of physics. That no one else saw it does not mean that the miracle did not occur. The sun may have not actually moved, and it probably did not. However, does that disprove what the 30,000 people there did see? And why did 30,000 people see it exactly when the children of Fatima said they would?

This is what happens when you actually use logic. You ought to give it a shot.

Positivism is illogical.

 

[Paschendale]

Then the question you need to ask yourself, is this the BEST way, or are there better ways people can achieve the same results?

This, right here. Even if faith and religion do lead some people to do good things, it also leads some people to do really horrible things. Meanwhile, without faith, people still do a lot of good things, and don't do those horrible things. Even if religion has benefits, they must still be weighed against the drawbacks. Alternatives with similar benefits and no drawbacks are necessarily superior. Humanist outlooks, that eschew superstition and myth, produce a comparable amount of goodness and do not produce Holocausts.

 

[phattonez]

This, right here. Even if faith and religion do lead some people to do good things, it also leads some people to do really horrible things. Meanwhile, without faith, people still do a lot of good things, and don't do those horrible things. Even if religion has benefits, they must still be weighed against the drawbacks. Alternatives with similar benefits and no drawbacks are necessarily superior. Humanist outlooks, that eschew superstition and myth, produce a comparable amount of goodness and do not produce Holocausts.

If we're going to talk about benefits, you have to talk about how secular humanism birthed the atrocities of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union Russia, Communist China, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. When you deny the intrinsic value of human life, genocides are not only possible, they are justifiable.

 

[Adagio]

Because faith can and often is what motivates people to do good things............if even in their own minds. You're still avoiding my question.....was it ever my claim that ONLY faith could do these things? :roll:

Why would it take faith to motivate somebody to do good things? I mean, that's so hypocritical. If it takes faith to motivate somebody to do good things, then they're striking a bargain. They're looking for a reward for doing something good. It's a selfish motivation. That's saying; If I do good, I get a reward that's promised in the faith. You do good things because they're good and benefit the person you're doing good for with no thought of reward in an afterlife. You do good for the sake of doing good. Not for the sake of a belief?

 

[FluffyNinja]

My responses are long enough to complete the reasons behind my critique of what you are saying. Regarding this:...



...I think your being purposefully vague in your response. Peter was a Disciple and was the "Rock" on which Christ's church would be built. By Christs own words the true church was established by Peter. The last I checked the entire Catholic Church is decended from Peter. The Pope wears the shoes of the Fisherman and according to doctrine is the next in direct line to Peter himself. So when you speak of the "true Church of Christ" what are you talking about?



Actually it's you that is missing my point. Try reading what I said again; "And every one of them subscribes to the traditions and authority of the church or whatever authority that gives them this theory of rationality. All beliefs are based on appeals to tradition, but mostly authority. You believe in something for a reason. You might even reject the doctrines of a church. There are many people that reject the dogma of a church, but they still believe in a Deity. It's the authority of the Deity that they submit to and all beliefs are based on appeals to authority.



One is enough. As I said, all beliefs are based on appeals to authority. I'm saying that Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. “However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism. Is there a part of what I just said that you reject? Here's the problem that you have as I see it; Given the choice between the truth and your belief, which would you choose? Is your belief more important to you than Truth? They aren't necessarily the same thing you know. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true. So, is the search for Truth important to you, or is it more important to hold on to a belief?



No matter how personal it is, it's still an appeal to authority. It's a theory of rationality that's been handed to you so that you need not judge the truth for yourself. The authority tells you what is true...and you believe it.



Of course they're dogmatic. Is there a part of Christian ideology that you reject? If so, which part? If you are a Christian, do you reject the miracles or the resurrection that are foundational to the entire belief? I know of no self-proclaimed Christians that deny those parts of the dogma. And it is dogma. "It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself." If you call yourself a Christian, what part of the dogma do you reject? You should understand that most atheists were Theists at one time. Lots of them were Christians. They simply examined the dogma and found it irrational and without and basis.



I understand that you think it's real, but that doesn't make it real. You keep referring to faith on a "personal level" as if this is somehow a more exclusive take on faith. I know of nobody that claims to be a person of faith that doesn't make the same claim. Because it's "personal" nobody can really understand them. That's really ridiculous. All beliefs are appeals to authority. And yes it's also an appeal to tradition. The very idea of holding a belief in a Deity such as Christ is based on a historical account of who he was. It's not an arbitrary thing. You were not ignorant of the historical figure of Christ before you magically became aware of him and his story. The tradition of Christianity revolves around the historical events that convince you of his authority. That's not escapable. Unless you were raised on a desert island, you'd heard the stories, and the stories are the tradition. I'm not here to attack your beliefs. That's really not my intention. For me, this discussion is to clarify where our beliefs come from. Why do we believe the things we believe? They're all appeals to authority and appeals to authority are always invalid. So I'm curious as to why people cling to irrationality. I don't know what the attraction is? I know that religious beliefs all offer a reward and that may justify the belief. They may also offer a threat..(burning in hell) so you'd best believe, or else. That seems completely hypocritical to me. If you're believing something to gain a reward, or to avoid a punishment, your motives are completely selfish and Jesus was selfless. So what does one hope to gain?? Can't you be a good person without hoping to gain something from it?



Oh please. They are integral to the faith. You are living within the traditional views of Christ. You weren't there, so you are putting your faith in, and believing things that happened a priori to your belief. I'm assuming as a Christian you celebrate Christmas, and Easter, perhaps Lent. Maybe more. So they're traditions...they just aren't traditions to you. Is that it?:roll:

All I can say is...."Oh ye of little faith....."

If you've never truly surrendered your "rational side" to the belief in something greater than we as humans can comprehend, then I'm sorry , but we'll simply continue bouncing off of one another and speaking from points of view which neither can fully comprehend. I have no need nor desire to justify my experiences through rational processes and have never made the claim that I could accomplish such.........I am content with my choices regarding faith.

 

[Adagio]

Funny how at least 30,000 people did see it, and it happened exactly when the children of Fatima said that it would.

Mass hysteria?:2wave:

 

[phattonez]

Mass hysteria?:2wave:

A cop-out of an argument. 30,000 people just imagined something, all at the same time, all with the same general idea? Spontaneously? Give me a break.

 

[Paschendale]

If we're going to talk about benefits, you have to talk about how secular humanism birthed the atrocities of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union Russia, Communist China, and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. When you deny the intrinsic value of human life, genocides are not only possible, they are justifiable.

Le sigh....

Please, show some evidence that any of those regimes took any inspiration from any kind of secular humanist philosophy. Especially the Nazis, who were overtly religious. That would be pretty impressive. Military dictatorships, even when they call themselves humanist, socialist, or democratic, aren't. They are built around the notion that might makes right and that people are inherently unequal. The regimes you cite were no more humanist than North Korea really is a Democratic People's Republic.

Also, how exactly do you reach the conclusion that secular humanism, a philosophy built on the intrinsic value of humanity as opposed to deriving that value from an external source, denies that same value? How does the idea that we are all playthings to a powerful being that can create us, destroy us, and torture us whenever it wants to promote any kind of intrinsic value to human life? If we have naught but each other, then we have great value. If we exist merely under the thumb of a powerful ruler, then we are basically worthless. Even if you take the "god made us special" position, we are still all slaves if he can create us, destroy us, and torment us at will.

 

[phattonez]

Le sigh....

Please, show some evidence that any of those regimes took any inspiration from any kind of secular humanist philosophy. Especially the Nazis, who were overtly religious. That would be pretty impressive. Military dictatorships, even when they call themselves humanist, socialist, or democratic, aren't. They are built around the notion that might makes right and that people are inherently unequal. The regimes you cite were no more humanist than North Korea really is a Democratic People's Republic.

Also, how exactly do you reach the conclusion that secular humanism, a philosophy built on the intrinsic value of humanity as opposed to deriving that value from an external source, denies that same value? How does the idea that we are all playthings to a powerful being that can create us, destroy us, and torture us whenever it wants to promote any kind of intrinsic value to human life? If we have naught but each other, then we have great value. If we exist merely under the thumb of a powerful ruler, then we are basically worthless. Even if you take the "god made us special" position, we are still all slaves if he can create us, destroy us, and torment us at will.

Secular humanism has no basis for intrinsic human value other than it is so. Thus, if humanity can be progressed through mass murder, as these regimes believed, then it is justifiable. Such an act would be unthinkable with any classical ethical systems, especially the religious ones. I can think of no Christian or even religious ethical system that could ever be used to condone such actions.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Why would it take faith to motivate somebody to do good things? I mean, that's so hypocritical. If it takes faith to motivate somebody to do good things, then they're striking a bargain. They're looking for a reward for doing something good. It's a selfish motivation. That's saying; If I do good, I get a reward that's promised in the faith. You do good things because they're good and benefit the person you're doing good for with no thought of reward in an afterlife. You do good for the sake of doing good. Not for the sake of a belief?

Faith is not a requirement for doing good things. I never made such a claim. I simply said that for many, it becomes the motivational factor a life of for sacrificial love and giving.

For many, it provides a "moral compass" and provides a hope that our life has a purpose that transcends mortality. Again......is religion necessary for this to occur?....... No....religions are man-made institutions that do indeed involve traditions and appeals to past or present authorities. Is faith necessary for this to occur?.......Absolutely.....and it requires no adherence to man-made institutions. :shrug:

 

[Adagio]

So in other words, as I was saying before, at least 30,000.



Ha! Who is going to coordinate getting the signed affidavits of 30,000 people? What you ask for is impossible; you're trying to find weak excuses for very strong evidence.



One definition of miracle is a suspension of the laws of physics. That no one else saw it does not mean that the miracle did not occur. The sun may have not actually moved, and it probably did not. However, does that disprove what the 30,000 people there did see? And why did 30,000 people see it exactly when the children of Fatima said they would?



Positivism is illogical.

What you ask for is impossible;

What you suggest is impossible. The effects of what you are talking about would have impacted the earth. It definately would have thrown the earth out of orbit. That didn't happen. Therefore the event couldn't have happened. What you have is a situtation involving however many thousand believers wanting to see what they wanted to see. A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment or illusion.

 

[phattonez]

What you suggest is impossible. The effects of what you are talking about would have impacted the earth. It definately would have thrown the earth out of orbit. That didn't happen. Therefore the event couldn't have happened. What you have is a situtation involving however many thousand believers wanting to see what they wanted to see.

And how did they all come to visualize basically the same thing? And as I argued before, that it was not visible from other places does not disprove that a miracle occurred. That all of the people there saw the same thing is a miracle in itself, even if not physically manifested in the sun's movement.

A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment or illusion.

Among at least 30,000 people? You're stretching it.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Do you think you could ever have faith in God but not ascribe to any particular religion? Say, just be a Deist instead of a Christian? You could still have faith in your personal God, and maybe use some of the teachings of the Christian bible to guide you but not truly follow the Christian faith in particular with all of it's stories and claims. I'm not challenging you or trying to convert you or anything, I'm just curious if this has ever crossed your mind.

No, because my personal experience is real. I do not place a great deal of faith in ANY religion because all religion is man-made and tainted by human constructs. Christianity is more...........it is about a personal relationship with Christ and adherence to his gospel. Any Christian who disagrees......is sadly........not Christian. Churches have perverted this relationship over the years to accomodate their own self-interests and this is why I suppose I have become sort of a non-denominational, Christian "purist." It's the best explanation that I can give. :shrug:

 

[FluffyNinja]

This, right here. Even if faith and religion do lead some people to do good things, it also leads some people to do really horrible things. Meanwhile, without faith, people still do a lot of good things, and don't do those horrible things. Even if religion has benefits, they must still be weighed against the drawbacks. Alternatives with similar benefits and no drawbacks are necessarily superior. Humanist outlooks, that eschew superstition and myth, produce a comparable amount of goodness and do not produce Holocausts.

Do people really need faith or a religious dogma to motivate them to do horrible things? How many horrible crimes are committed each and every day without "religious motivation"?

 

[Adagio]

So in other words, as I was saying before, at least 30,000.



Ha! Who is going to coordinate getting the signed affidavits of 30,000 people? What you ask for is impossible; you're trying to find weak excuses for very strong evidence.



One definition of miracle is a suspension of the laws of physics. That no one else saw it does not mean that the miracle did not occur. The sun may have not actually moved, and it probably did not. However, does that disprove what the 30,000 people there did see? And why did 30,000 people see it exactly when the children of Fatima said they would?



Positivism is illogical.

But Critical Rationalism is. Assuming that a miracle is a favorable change in the natural order, we would say that it's disturbance or interruption in the expected and established course of things. This could be anything from the sun dancing in the sky or rising in the west, to a dog playing Mozart on the piano. Fine, then free will also involves decision. If you seem to witness such a thing, there are two possibilities. The first is that the laws of nature have been suspended in your favor. The second is that you are under a misapprehension, or suffereing from a delusion. It's one or the other. So the lieklihood of the second must be weighed against the likelihood of the first.

If you hear a report of the miracle from a second or third party, the odds must be adjusted accorrdingly before you can decide to credit a witness who claims to have seen something that you did not see. If you are separated from the "sighting" by many generations, and have no independent corroboration, the odds must be adjusted still more drastically. You might want to consider pulling out Occams Razor at this point and not multiply unnecessary contingencies. The simplest answer is usually the right one.

 

[phattonez]

But Critical Rationalism is. Assuming that a miracle is a favorable change in the natural order, we would say that it's disturbance or interruption in the expected and established course of things. This could be anything from the sun dancing in the sky or rising in the west, to a dog playing Mozart on the piano. Fine, then free will also involves decision. If you seem to witness such a thing, there are two possibilities. The first is that the laws of nature have been suspended in your favor. The second is that you are under a misapprehension, or suffereing from a delusion. It's one or the other. So the lieklihood of the second must be weighed against the likelihood of the first.

Why are those the only options? Visions are not necessarily delusions.

If you hear a report of the miracle from a second or third party, the odds must be adjusted accorrdingly before you can decide to credit a witness who claims to have seen something that you did not see. If you are separated from the "sighting" by many generations, and have no independent corroboration, the odds must be adjusted still more drastically. You might want to consider pulling out Occams Razor at this point and not multiply unnecessary contingencies. The simplest answer is usually the right one.

30,000 people seeing the same thing at the same time while all having no relationship to each other: I don't see delusion as being the simplest solution to this.