Is the MJ Car Bonnet image a miracle as SupaAFC claims.

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 337 Comments Last updated May 17, 2013
First Prev
of 17
Next Last
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 22, 2010
 
SupaAFC has been claiming the MJ Car Bonnet image is a miracle. I say no reasonable person would say it's a miracle. Does anyone know of a reasonable person who claims it's a miracle? I would say any reasonable person would conclude it's a reflection of the clouds off the bonnet; and as everyone knows you can see anything you can imagine in clouds.

" http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx... ;
SupaAFC

Sheffield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 22, 2010
 
As is commonly said, it takes two to tango. To people reading this thread wondering what the hell Paul is on about, allow me to explain:

We have been "debating" in the "Experts debate reality of God" ( http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ). Paul's argument for the existence of God is that the Shroud of Turin is a miracle and as such proves that Jesus not only lived, but was the messiah and is definitely real today as God.

Paul proceeded to rationalise his way out of accepting refutations of the shroud, making up claims on the spot to ignore historical testimonies from medieval clergy, the carbon dating of the shroud in 1989 and even defying his own church today who, of course, do not recognise the shroud as magical.

He was then pressed to prove that the shroud is indeed a miracle. All he could muster in response was that science cannot prove it is natural, so it is therefore a miracle (an argument from ignorance), and that "probability" also supports it. No numbers or calculations have ever been provided to back up this claim.

In response, I provided a link to the MJ car bonnet and used the exact same arguments as he did for the shroud. Since then:

1) Paul has refused to explain why these arguments work for the shroud, and not for the car bonnet. This undeniably shows that he holds a double standard in favour of the shroud.

2) He refuses to explain how the shroud can be proof that it belongs to Jesus considering nobody knows what he looks like.

3) He refuses to explain how the shroud is proof of magic, considering that even if we were to assume that it is the burial shroud of a man named Jesus 2000 years ago, it is useless in determining the future of the corpse or the validity of the alleged resurrection.

4) He refuses to explain the difference between a fact and an opinion. He dances round refutations to his arguments by either ignoring them, or labelling them as "opinion".

5) He has spent the last few days trying to change the subject to biocentrism, continuing to ignore explaining the holes in his miracle argument.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Now, Paul is attempting to dismiss the MJ car bonnet as a miracle on the grounds that nobody "truly" believes it is a miracle instead of properly explaining why we should take the shroud seriously, but not the car bonnet.

Why don't you come clean, Paul, and explain to us why your arguments work for the shroud, but not the car bonnet? "I don't think it looks like MJ" is a lousy argument considering you don't have a CLUE what Jesus looked like assuming he even existed.
redneck

Myrtle Creek, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 22, 2010
 
Miracles are for myths and fairy tales. I have a branding iron of jesus and burn it on toast or pancakes when I have company. I love the look they get.
SupaAFC

Sheffield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 22, 2010
 
redneck wrote:
Miracles are for myths and fairy tales. I have a branding iron of jesus and burn it on toast or pancakes when I have company. I love the look they get.
I SO want that.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 22, 2010
 
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I SO want that.
I do some amateur blacksmithing...I know what I'm going to attempt as soon as it gets a little cooler.

It's hot as hell out there right now.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 22, 2010
 
SupaAFC wrote:
As is commonly said, it takes two to tango. To people reading this thread wondering what the hell Paul is on about, allow me to explain:
We have been "debating" in the "Experts debate reality of God" ( http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ). Paul's argument for the existence of God is that the Shroud of Turin is a miracle and as such proves that Jesus not only lived, but was the messiah and is definitely real today as God.
Paul proceeded to rationalise his way out of accepting refutations of the shroud, making up claims on the spot to ignore historical testimonies from medieval clergy, the carbon dating of the shroud in 1989 and even defying his own church today who, of course, do not recognise the shroud as magical.
He was then pressed to prove that the shroud is indeed a miracle. All he could muster in response was that science cannot prove it is natural, so it is therefore a miracle (an argument from ignorance), and that "probability" also supports it. No numbers or calculations have ever been provided to back up this claim.
In response, I provided a link to the MJ car bonnet and used the exact same arguments as he did for the shroud. Since then:
1) Paul has refused to explain why these arguments work for the shroud, and not for the car bonnet. This undeniably shows that he holds a double standard in favour of the shroud.
2) He refuses to explain how the shroud can be proof that it belongs to Jesus considering nobody knows what he looks like.
3) He refuses to explain how the shroud is proof of magic, considering that even if we were to assume that it is the burial shroud of a man named Jesus 2000 years ago, it is useless in determining the future of the corpse or the validity of the alleged resurrection.
4) He refuses to explain the difference between a fact and an opinion. He dances round refutations to his arguments by either ignoring them, or labelling them as "opinion".
5) He has spent the last few days trying to change the subject to biocentrism, continuing to ignore explaining the holes in his miracle argument.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Now, Paul is attempting to dismiss the MJ car bonnet as a miracle on the grounds that nobody "truly" believes it is a miracle instead of properly explaining why we should take the shroud seriously, but not the car bonnet.
Why don't you come clean, Paul, and explain to us why your arguments work for the shroud, but not the car bonnet? "I don't think it looks like MJ" is a lousy argument considering you don't have a CLUE what Jesus looked like assuming he even existed.
Don't forget Jedi Paulies assertions about the picture in the Church, in Italy, I think, that supposedly had a blood type that was never before( and it was obviously the blood of jesus).

He then claimed that the 'evil atheists" had somehow prevented him from posting links to "the proof".

I found the site he was talking about, looked up his"proof", and at the end of the discussion(which I guess Jedi Pauly didn't read), it was found the blood was normal, of human origin and was not "the jesus".

We can count on Jedi Pauly for many things, but being forthcoming and earnest isn't included.

I can link it if its desired.
SupaAFC

Sheffield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 22, 2010
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget Jedi Paulies assertions about the picture in the Church, in Italy, I think, that supposedly had a blood type that was never before( and it was obviously the blood of jesus).
He then claimed that the 'evil atheists" had somehow prevented him from posting links to "the proof".
I found the site he was talking about, looked up his"proof", and at the end of the discussion(which I guess Jedi Pauly didn't read), it was found the blood was normal, of human origin and was not "the jesus".
We can count on Jedi Pauly for many things, but being forthcoming and earnest isn't included.
I can link it if its desired.
Oh yeah. I forgot that we apparently went all 1984 on paul's apparent proof to suppress his shroud story, even though none of us have any moderating powers.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 23, 2010
 
I am still waiting proof the mj bonnet image is a miracle as claimed by supafc. Any reasonable person, on even a cursory inspection of the image, will determine it's nothing more than a reflection of clouds on the bonnet of the car and the rest is imagination.

Will not anybody step forth and claim it's a miracle and make supafc happy?
SupaAFC

Sheffield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 23, 2010
 
Paul WV wrote:
I am still waiting proof the mj bonnet image is a miracle as claimed by supafc. Any reasonable person, on even a cursory inspection of the image, will determine it's nothing more than a reflection of clouds on the bonnet of the car and the rest is imagination.
Will not anybody step forth and claim it's a miracle and make supafc happy?
Welcome to our world, where we still await your explanation as to why your arguments for the rag is proof that it's a miracle, but when I used your exact same arguments for the car bonnet, they don't count.

It's sad that you chose to omit telling the people reading this thread about our "debate" about the rag. If you did then they would realise the whole point of the car bonnet and why it is not remotely worth their time taking anything you say seriously.

Still waiting for your explanation, chuck.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 23, 2010
 
http://www.shroudstory.com/

The Shroud of Turin is the most scientifically study artifact ever. Science is a lost to explain how the image was formed and until science comes up with an alternative theory the theory that it's was a miracle is the most logical.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 23, 2010
 
Paul WV wrote:
I am still waiting proof the mj bonnet image is a miracle as claimed by supafc. Any reasonable person, on even a cursory inspection of the image, will determine it's nothing more than a reflection of clouds on the bonnet of the car and the rest is imagination.
Will not anybody step forth and claim it's a miracle and make supafc happy?
It's already been done, two days ago
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

and although you responded to several other posts of mine, like the cowardly liar you always are, you scurried off rather than acknowledge that somebody has called the Bonnet of Stafford a miracle. Now, in your usual cock-a-roach manner, you pretend like it never happened.

You never fail to revile.

O holy!

You are as fraudulent, vacuous and insipid as your religion, Paul.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 23, 2010
 
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome to our world, where we still await your explanation as to why your arguments for the rag is proof that it's a miracle, but when I used your exact same arguments for the car bonnet, they don't count.
It's sad that you chose to omit telling the people reading this thread about our "debate" about the rag. If you did then they would realise the whole point of the car bonnet and why it is not remotely worth their time taking anything you say seriously.
Still waiting for your explanation, chuck.
I am still waiting for you to provide any scientific investigations, by experts in the field, that say it's not a reflection of clouds off the car bonnet. You will also need a psychiatrist to interview the person who originally reported the image to see if he has a hang up on mj. If given the inkblot test the seer may see mj in every inkblot.

I am anxiously waiting your proof the mj car bonnet image is a miracle.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 23, 2010
 
Paul WV wrote:
http://www.shroudstory.com/
The Shroud of Turin is the most scientifically study artifact ever. Science is a lost to explain how the image was formed and until science comes up with an alternative theory the theory that it's was a miracle is the most logical.
You're a liar.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/07/it...
http://secweb.infidels.org/article815.html
http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 23, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's already been done, two days ago
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
and although you responded to several other posts of mine, like the cowardly liar you always are, you scurried off rather than acknowledge that somebody has called the Bonnet of Stafford a miracle. Now, in your usual cock-a-roach manner, you pretend like it never happened.
You never fail to revile.
O holy!
You are as fraudulent, vacuous and insipid as your religion, Paul.
You don't believe it's a miracle so you are a liar; unless, of coarse, you are also claiming atheists believe in miracles.

So, do all atheists believe in miracles, or, just you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 23, 2010
 
Paul WV wrote:
I am anxiously waiting your proof the mj car bonnet image is a miracle.
You've got the proof, but you're not a bright man, so I'll repeat it for you. It's the same proof you gave for the Shroud being a miracle.

Science is at a loss to explain the miracle of the Bonnet at Stafford, thus, there is no other explanation. The odds are overwhelmingly likely that it is a miracle.

That is the proof. If you can find a flaw with it not also present in your own proof, I'd like to see it.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 23, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
As I've posted many times: science corrects itself when presented with new evidence. You can not jut pick and choose what science you want to 'believe'.

The Shroud reproduction does not match the Shroud of Turin because the blood was added after the image and not before as in the case of the Shroud. If the blood was put on first the image making process would have smeared the blood. Sorry charlie!
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 23, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got the proof, but you're not a bright man, so I'll repeat it for you. It's the same proof you gave for the Shroud being a miracle.
Science is at a loss to explain the miracle of the Bonnet at Stafford, thus, there is no other explanation. The odds are overwhelmingly likely that it is a miracle.
That is the proof. If you can find a flaw with it not also present in your own proof, I'd like to see it.
That is such a juvenile answer, why do I bother with you all?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 23, 2010
 
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't believe it's a miracle so you are a liar; unless, of coarse, you are also claiming atheists believe in miracles.
So, do all atheists believe in miracles, or, just you?
I converted. O holy! You were looking for a believer, you've got one.

But please do keep running, you contemptible cockaroach. And keep posting. I want Topix readers that visit this thread to see your Christian mind at work. I want them to see your intellect and your values. I want them to know what kind of a person chooses the Jesus. And I want them to see what years of the Jesus does to a mind.

Now tell the people how the pedophilia sex ring scandal in your church is just a bunch of lying altar boys.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 23, 2010
 
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've posted many times: science corrects itself when presented with new evidence. You can not jut pick and choose what science you want to 'believe'.
The Shroud reproduction does not match the Shroud of Turin because the blood was added after the image and not before as in the case of the Shroud. If the blood was put on first the image making process would have smeared the blood. Sorry charlie!
I provided three links contradicting you. You give your uncorroborated opinion. Here’s why that’s worthless:
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Mysterious_Ways/...

“The blood on the Shroud makes no sense to me. If Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in the Shroud immediately, then as he was carried to the tomb in the Shroud, his blood would have been smeared all over the cloth. How can anyone carry a grown man whose body is saturated with blood in a linen cloth and keep the blood from smearing?

"If, on the other hand, the body had been carried to a tomb, then transferred to the Shroud, there would be little or no blood on the Shroud because corpses don't bleed and blood that isn't being pumped continually coagulates quickly.

"It seems obvious that the blood on the Shroud appears as it does (i.e., in the "correct" or "expected" places) because an artist chose to depict the places the blood would have flowed while Jesus was on the cross or immediately after he was taken down. But the Shroud is a burial cloth, and that means the blood should not be in the "expected" places.

"Either the blood should be smeared everywhere, or there should be little or no blood, depending on whether the body was carried from the cross to the tomb in the Shroud, or was transferred to the Shroud later. Whether the blood is real or not really doesn't matter, if the Shroud is a forgery. An artist could have chosen to use real blood, or pigments like red ocher or vermillion. Or different artists could have used blood and pigments at different times. But in any case, real or not, the blood on an actual burial cloth should not be in the "expected" places.

"It seems obvious to me that the Shroud artists were portraying the blood as it would have appeared before the body of Jesus was transported to the tomb.”

GTFOOH!
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Aug 23, 2010
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided three links contradicting you. You give your uncorroborated opinion. Here’s why that’s worthless:
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Mysterious_Ways/...
“The blood on the Shroud makes no sense to me. If Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in the Shroud immediately, then as he was carried to the tomb in the Shroud, his blood would have been smeared all over the cloth. How can anyone carry a grown man whose body is saturated with blood in a linen cloth and keep the blood from smearing?
"If, on the other hand, the body had been carried to a tomb, then transferred to the Shroud, there would be little or no blood on the Shroud because corpses don't bleed and blood that isn't being pumped continually coagulates quickly.
"It seems obvious that the blood on the Shroud appears as it does (i.e., in the "correct" or "expected" places) because an artist chose to depict the places the blood would have flowed while Jesus was on the cross or immediately after he was taken down. But the Shroud is a burial cloth, and that means the blood should not be in the "expected" places.
"Either the blood should be smeared everywhere, or there should be little or no blood, depending on whether the body was carried from the cross to the tomb in the Shroud, or was transferred to the Shroud later. Whether the blood is real or not really doesn't matter, if the Shroud is a forgery. An artist could have chosen to use real blood, or pigments like red ocher or vermillion. Or different artists could have used blood and pigments at different times. But in any case, real or not, the blood on an actual burial cloth should not be in the "expected" places.
"It seems obvious to me that the Shroud artists were portraying the blood as it would have appeared before the body of Jesus was transported to the tomb.”
GTFOOH!
The science says it's not a painting so the writer will have to come up with a better theory why the blood is as it is.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 17
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

10 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 7 min CunningLinguist 29
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min CunningLinguist 224,605
Our world came from nothing? 46 min NightSerf 258
Atheists, give up your lost religion and seek t... (Nov '13) 2 hr CunningLinguist 229
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 3 hr CunningLinguist 70,963
Introducing The Universal Religion 9 hr Patrick 737
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 9 hr Patrick 397
•••
•••