Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Ok I'll have a look at your miracles Dommy:
1) Jesus born of a virgin:
This one rests solely on the mistranslation of the Greek for "young woman" into the Roman for "virgin" so it's not a miracle, just some bad (or deliberately malicious) copying. No
2)Water into wine:
A) is dismissed without any explanation of how it is not plausible, despite the fact of myriad magic tricks which manage to do the switcheroo on bigger items.
B) the steward thought the wine was good, so he wasn't drunk. This defense follows no logic at all. I hate wine personally, but get me drunk and I'll proclaim to the skies very loudly about how good it is. Taking the unverified word of an unexaminable witness is not good at all. No
3) The load of fishes:
I know this to be the Sea of Gallilee. And it is definitely not ocean fishing. Well it is not a deep lake only reaching a depth of 46m. The lake was also heavily fished, so anyone with a good knowledge of fishing and the area would be able to point out good fishing spots. Jesus' probable good knowledge is not a miracle No.
4) Jesus cast out demons:
"Though this is possible, it is merely conjecture," is the authors response to the claim that we have no evidence of demons, and people were pretending. If he were talking about the existence of demons this would be a valid sentence, in talking about the valid hypothesis which refutes the claims he is being disingenious. There has never been one properly documented acutal demonic possession ever. There have been however many medical conditions mistaken for demonic possession, and use of same to discredit enemies throughout history. So you can not airily dismiss a claim which has more evidence than yours and expect to be taken seriously No.
5)Healing Illnesses:
He uses the same arguements to dismiss two claims which are mighty similar to the dismissals for 2)&4) above, neither of these dismissals actually bring evidence which would support such dismissal, and seeing as I haven't brought it up yet, he has not given any evidence for the five "miracles" apart from "they're in the bible" and "Jeesus, JEEEEEESUS!" No
6) Jesus healing a paralytic:
He actually says that the hypothesis of dismissal is plausible, but gives no reason why it is not as plausible as the miracle hypothesis apart from "Jeesus, JEEEEEESUS!" Epic fail is epic No.
7) Raising the dead:
Hypothesis of refutation: "Those who were dead were really only appeared to be dead. Given that the people of the time were not aware of many of the medical intricacies that can lead to people looking dead when they were not really dead." Seeing as there wasn't a proper test for death invented until well after the Renaissance (the 1700's IIRC) this is a very good and valid refutation, enough to make the opposite side need to really get their evidence right to prove themselves. Hypothesis of confirmation: People used die at home in 1AD so Jesus knew more about death than we do. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! Jesus was not a doctor with any sort of medical training, he was a mendicant preacher, and seeing people die doesn't suddenly make you an expert on death, otherwise the incidence of live burials would be far higher now than in the past. And the fact of people dieing in hospitals does not make you less likely to see death, as you'd only ever see close family die at home, and guess what? It is a very rare person indeed who doesn't visit close family when they're in hospital. Absolutely No.
8) Healing the blind:
"Jeesus, JEEEEESUS!" Ever hear of temporary blindness bud? Moving on NO.
9) Healing the deaf:
see 8 above NO.
10) The loaves and fishes:
We see the worst of the authors inability to argue his point here, two valid hypotheses are brought up 1) Jesus laid on a stash before hand, and 2) Jesus got people to share their food and not be mean. He dismisses both of these because they are not in the bible. No evidence no arguement, just dismiss any (far more plausible) alternative because it does not appear in the biased book which will inflate Jesus' reputation massively. This deserves the Jean-Luc Picard award for stupid:
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! You can't dismiss something without evidence against it.
11) Jesus walking on water:
He uses "600 stadia" as his proof. 3 problems off the top of my head:
1) We don't know how long a stadium was, it could have been a foot, it could have been a mile.
2) He used the opposite arguement for the abundance of fishes "miracle"
3) The only witnesses were his disciples, that is not independant evidence, and would not be permissible in court. Primitive and Outmoded Concept on a Crutch NO!
12) Jesus calmed a storm:
Read the story of Knut the Great, idiot! "Time and tide wait for no man," same with storms! NO!
13) Jesus rose from the dead:
Evidence for:
The disciples and female followers of Jesus. This was a cult movement with a hard core of devoted followers of the leader, this kind of delusion happens the whole time with cults, moving on No.
And he refutes the "Jesus never die" theory by saying that the Romans were experts in crucifixion, and ignoring the fact that whoever wrote the bible didn't know the first thing about it. Frankly the crucifixion may never have happened. And Barabbas was often mentioned in early texts as Jesus Barabbas (shurely shome mishtake as the Private Eye would have it), and the translation of bar-Abbas, "son of the father". Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser.
14) Appearing to disciples and 15) rising into heaven.
Read 13) please the disciples are and never were reliable witnesses, as members of a cult they would have said, seen, and done thing which would uphold their cult as much as possible, this would easily include lieing about 14) &15). No and No.
So in conclusion none of your author's explanations actually prove anything, and often quite valid hypotheses of disproof are dismissed arbitrarily. So I am perfectly justified in giving him a perfect score of 0/15 miracles proved.
@ the mods I was calling the author of the page linked by Dommy an idiot due to the extremely bad arguements used. I am not trying to denigrate anyone on this forum by association with the above.
1) Jesus born of a virgin:
This one rests solely on the mistranslation of the Greek for "young woman" into the Roman for "virgin" so it's not a miracle, just some bad (or deliberately malicious) copying. No
2)Water into wine:
A) is dismissed without any explanation of how it is not plausible, despite the fact of myriad magic tricks which manage to do the switcheroo on bigger items.
B) the steward thought the wine was good, so he wasn't drunk. This defense follows no logic at all. I hate wine personally, but get me drunk and I'll proclaim to the skies very loudly about how good it is. Taking the unverified word of an unexaminable witness is not good at all. No
3) The load of fishes:
I know this to be the Sea of Gallilee. And it is definitely not ocean fishing. Well it is not a deep lake only reaching a depth of 46m. The lake was also heavily fished, so anyone with a good knowledge of fishing and the area would be able to point out good fishing spots. Jesus' probable good knowledge is not a miracle No.
4) Jesus cast out demons:
"Though this is possible, it is merely conjecture," is the authors response to the claim that we have no evidence of demons, and people were pretending. If he were talking about the existence of demons this would be a valid sentence, in talking about the valid hypothesis which refutes the claims he is being disingenious. There has never been one properly documented acutal demonic possession ever. There have been however many medical conditions mistaken for demonic possession, and use of same to discredit enemies throughout history. So you can not airily dismiss a claim which has more evidence than yours and expect to be taken seriously No.
5)Healing Illnesses:
He uses the same arguements to dismiss two claims which are mighty similar to the dismissals for 2)&4) above, neither of these dismissals actually bring evidence which would support such dismissal, and seeing as I haven't brought it up yet, he has not given any evidence for the five "miracles" apart from "they're in the bible" and "Jeesus, JEEEEEESUS!" No
6) Jesus healing a paralytic:
He actually says that the hypothesis of dismissal is plausible, but gives no reason why it is not as plausible as the miracle hypothesis apart from "Jeesus, JEEEEEESUS!" Epic fail is epic No.
7) Raising the dead:
Hypothesis of refutation: "Those who were dead were really only appeared to be dead. Given that the people of the time were not aware of many of the medical intricacies that can lead to people looking dead when they were not really dead." Seeing as there wasn't a proper test for death invented until well after the Renaissance (the 1700's IIRC) this is a very good and valid refutation, enough to make the opposite side need to really get their evidence right to prove themselves. Hypothesis of confirmation: People used die at home in 1AD so Jesus knew more about death than we do. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! Jesus was not a doctor with any sort of medical training, he was a mendicant preacher, and seeing people die doesn't suddenly make you an expert on death, otherwise the incidence of live burials would be far higher now than in the past. And the fact of people dieing in hospitals does not make you less likely to see death, as you'd only ever see close family die at home, and guess what? It is a very rare person indeed who doesn't visit close family when they're in hospital. Absolutely No.
8) Healing the blind:
"Jeesus, JEEEEESUS!" Ever hear of temporary blindness bud? Moving on NO.
9) Healing the deaf:
see 8 above NO.
10) The loaves and fishes:
We see the worst of the authors inability to argue his point here, two valid hypotheses are brought up 1) Jesus laid on a stash before hand, and 2) Jesus got people to share their food and not be mean. He dismisses both of these because they are not in the bible. No evidence no arguement, just dismiss any (far more plausible) alternative because it does not appear in the biased book which will inflate Jesus' reputation massively. This deserves the Jean-Luc Picard award for stupid:
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! You can't dismiss something without evidence against it.
11) Jesus walking on water:
He uses "600 stadia" as his proof. 3 problems off the top of my head:
1) We don't know how long a stadium was, it could have been a foot, it could have been a mile.
2) He used the opposite arguement for the abundance of fishes "miracle"
3) The only witnesses were his disciples, that is not independant evidence, and would not be permissible in court. Primitive and Outmoded Concept on a Crutch NO!
12) Jesus calmed a storm:
Read the story of Knut the Great, idiot! "Time and tide wait for no man," same with storms! NO!
13) Jesus rose from the dead:
Evidence for:
The disciples and female followers of Jesus. This was a cult movement with a hard core of devoted followers of the leader, this kind of delusion happens the whole time with cults, moving on No.
And he refutes the "Jesus never die" theory by saying that the Romans were experts in crucifixion, and ignoring the fact that whoever wrote the bible didn't know the first thing about it. Frankly the crucifixion may never have happened. And Barabbas was often mentioned in early texts as Jesus Barabbas (shurely shome mishtake as the Private Eye would have it), and the translation of bar-Abbas, "son of the father". Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser.
14) Appearing to disciples and 15) rising into heaven.
Read 13) please the disciples are and never were reliable witnesses, as members of a cult they would have said, seen, and done thing which would uphold their cult as much as possible, this would easily include lieing about 14) &15). No and No.
So in conclusion none of your author's explanations actually prove anything, and often quite valid hypotheses of disproof are dismissed arbitrarily. So I am perfectly justified in giving him a perfect score of 0/15 miracles proved.
@ the mods I was calling the author of the page linked by Dommy an idiot due to the extremely bad arguements used. I am not trying to denigrate anyone on this forum by association with the above.
