Another "I saw Jesus" claim

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm just as skeptical about this story as anyone here, but just out of curiosity, all of you (presumably) rely on science to provide all the answers, so how is it that you are able to rush to judgment concerning this claim without the benefit of actually researching it carefully?

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

Because there are optional explanations that don't rely on the supernatural.  While it is certainly possible that this young man saw Jesus, it is also possible that he saw the results of oxygen deprivation, or images caused by his brain misfiring during its attempt to shut down.

When confronted with a natural phenomenon (hallucination), natural explanations are always preferable to supernatural ones.  One of your co-religionists sorted this out some seven centuries ago.

Boru

[Minimalist]

where doctors worked to revive him.

Fuck jesus.

[Nope]

A man with long ruffled hair and a beard? Maybe he saw Thor

[Randy Carson]

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

I am naturally going to be skeptical when the individual in question makes a hearsay claim with no evidence to support stated claim.  To blindly believe in the claim is to be utterly ignorant.  

Of course. I didn't say you should believe the claim. I don't believe the claim.

But you haven't withheld judgment while you gather more information. You have already concluded the matter without looking into it at all.

If someone had said that they discovered a warm-blooded fish, would you believe them? Or would you dismiss the claim without investigating simply because everyone knows that fish are cold-blooded?

---

I'm just as skeptical about this story as anyone here, but just out of curiosity, all of you (presumably) rely on science to provide all the answers, so how is it that you are able to rush to judgment concerning this claim without the benefit of actually researching it carefully?

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

Because there are optional explanations that don't rely on the supernatural.  While it is certainly possible that this young man saw Jesus, it is also possible that he saw the results of oxygen deprivation, or images caused by his brain misfiring during its attempt to shut down.

When confronted with a natural phenomenon (hallucination), natural explanations are always preferable to supernatural ones.  One of your co-religionists sorted this out some seven centuries ago.

Boru

I'm actually a descendant of Brian Boru...king of Ireland in the 9th or 10th century...something like that, I think.

Anyway, yes I agree with you. Including the part where you noted that it is possible that he saw Jesus. 

I personally think its unlikely, but it's nice to hear from someone who is open to supernatural possibilities. 

[robvalue]

I don't see how the claim can be investigated. For one thing, no one knows what Jesus looks like anyway. Secondly, we're relying entirely on the kid's testimony about what happened. There's no way to properly examine it (unless they happened to record his brain activity or something). So it's an unfalsifiable claim at present. It's far more reasonable and likely to assume it was a hallucination, something we're very familiar with.

As with all unfalsifiable claims, it could be true. But as usual, no reason to think it's actually true.

[Ravenshire]

I'm just as skeptical about this story as anyone here, but just out of curiosity, all of you (presumably) rely on science to provide all the answers, so how is it that you are able to rush to judgment concerning this claim without the benefit of actually researching it carefully?

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

Since there are ongoing tests to verify/debunk the claims of NDEs and all the evidence so far points to the bullshit end of the spectrum. It is easy to dismiss without evidence what has been claimed without evidence and the lack of evidence is clear.

---

But you haven't withheld judgment while you gather more information. You have already concluded the matter without looking into it at all.

So, how many times should we fully investigate the same claims, see the same overwhelming lack of evidence for the supernatural and determine that it's bullshit?

Do you recognize shit when you see it, or do you have to smell it and taste it as well, every time before you determine it's shit?

[Minimalist]

I'm just as skeptical about this story as anyone here, but just out of curiosity, all of you (presumably) rely on science to provide all the answers, so how is it that you are able to rush to judgment concerning this claim without the benefit of actually researching it carefully?

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

http://news.discovery.com/human/psycholo...iences.htm


Science has studied the issue.  Their conclusion makes far more sense than 'god' ( which makes no sense at all. )

[Mudhammam]

I'm just as skeptical about this story as anyone here, but just out of curiosity, all of you (presumably) rely on science to provide all the answers, so how is it that you are able to rush to judgment concerning this claim without the benefit of actually researching it carefully?

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

The earliest depiction of Jesus dates to 200 years after he allegedly lived, which means nobody knows what Jesus actually looked like.

Therefore, "I saw a man who had long ruffled hair and kind of a thick beard" is not an indication that "it was Jesus."

See how simple logic can be?

Maybe the figure that he saw looked like this? 




In which case, that's how dreams usually work---you see things that are familiar in the everyday world---like images of Jesus.

Btw, didn't Paul and the apostles see Jesus post-crucifixion? Looks like that isn't so uncommon---or miraculous---after all.

[Ravenshire]

Jesus (if he existed) probably looked more Bin Laden than Chuck Norris.

[Randy Carson]

I don't see how the claim can be investigated. For one thing, no one knows what Jesus looks like anyway. Secondly, we're relying entirely on the kid's testimony about what happened. There's no way to properly examine it (unless they happened to record his brain activity or something). So it's an unfalsifiable claim at present. It's far more reasonable and likely to assume it was a hallucination, something we're very familiar with.

As with all unfalsifiable claims, it could be true. But as usual, no reason to think it's actually true.

I think you're right for the most part.

At best, we would have to consider the character of the person, his family, etc. If he's an Eagle Scout, straight-A student who volunteers on the weekend at a retirement home, that might lend some credibility but we'd need more.

So, we might watch for evidence of a changed personality or lifestyle. If he gave up drinking, drugs and sustained those changes, that too, might give us cause to think that SOMETHING happened to him.

We might also compare his account with others that have been given in the past...just to see if there are any obvious deviations from what we "know" of Jesus. Further, we might monitor his story over time to see if it changed. Lies are hard to maintain since there is no real mental image to refer to for something that never actually happened.

In the end, it's going to be a matter of weighing probabilities as to whether he really saw Jesus or not.

Some folks will be too quick to believe he did, while others will be to quick to say that he didn't.

---

I'm just as skeptical about this story as anyone here, but just out of curiosity, all of you (presumably) rely on science to provide all the answers, so how is it that you are able to rush to judgment concerning this claim without the benefit of actually researching it carefully?

What facts do you have that enable you to reach your conclusion?

In which case, that's how dreams usually work---you see things that are familiar in the everyday world---like images of Jesus.

Btw, didn't Paul and the apostles see Jesus post-crucifixion? Looks like that isn't so uncommon---or miraculous---after all.

Why yes...Peter and many other followers of Jesus did see Him after the crucifixion. 

Of course, they weren't dead at the time, but then neither was He.