JV-12:

When a wooden statue of Mary has been videotaped on many occasions having tears of human blood streaming down from her eyes and her right palm, when the statue was observed bleeding by a medical doctor for himself, and had the object cat scanned, and tested multiple ways and when he and others rule “no natural explanation for said phenomenon” ---

What's missing here is a specific example, something we can investigate, possibly a link to support it. The last one we argued about -- Akita -- I researched and found that a catholic bishop procured liquids for a forensic investigator to examine. And I have laid out other examples of statues kept from investigators, and statues which mysteriously stop doing anything once they're being watched.

Could you tell us to which bleeding statue you're referring in this instance? And do you think it's standard practice on CSI, for example, for suspects to gather evidence that the CSI techs then investigate? I mean, I haven't watched the show in awhile, but it seemed to work differently.

and then when skeptics come back with it could be condensation, or I can show you how someone can rig a statue and have it exude liquid, or I have a hoax in Texas to show how screwy people are, or even when they say I do not believe it we just have not found the natural explanation for it yet --- when they refuse to believe it is supernatural for the lamest of explanations as the ones I just gave --- THAT is agenda driven in my estimation.

In other words, disagreement with you = agenda. That is your bias speaking, JV-12. What exactly is 'lame' or 'weak' or 'agenda driven' about pointing out real honest-to-FSM hoaxes, cases of catholics fabricating miracles, and how to apply or insert or inject liquids to leak out when needed later? Those things are real. I would submit that with fake bleeding/weeping statues being so easy to create, your god should consider a new form of miracle.

How about a Fatima-style sun dance that can be observed worldwide and from space, recorded from the space station and by the Hubble telescope and other such devices around the world, for example? Perhaps on yearly intervals, just so the recordings and techniques don't become dated over time.

They are doing all they can to avoid the obvious conclusions, because the obvious conclusions point to the supernatural, God, Jesus, and Mary. (Or did I miss other obvious conclusions not mentioned above?)

You have dismissed them via your bias and arguments from incredulity.

I am not claiming supernatural because I want it to be supernatural or because of my agenda --- I am claiming supernatural because the facts and sensible observations and those of outsiders say it is. The same with Fatima.

So in this case, both sides present facts, observations, and explanations. But conveniently, my side is biased and agenda-driven and yours is not. Needless to say, I dispute your conclusion.

The implausible (and that is being kind) explanations for what might have occurred there (such as mass hallucination) are agenda driven simply because they have no basis in probabilities --- they are ridiculous, and it is clear they do not want to believe and are doing whatever they can to try to maintain that position.

How do we calculate the probability of a so-called miracle being caused by an actual god, vs. a mass hallucination? I think that for this quiz, we'll need you to show your math...

Argument from incredulity again.