Talk:Marshall Brain

Soriano's Answer to Brain
I removed the claim that Mr. Eliseo Soriano had answered the questions posed by Brain's "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" after poring over Mr. Soriano's blog. On 18 Jun 2007 he posts: "If they say that God won’t heal amputees because He is imaginary, who then healed them of their sickness after the amputation has been done?". "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"'s premise is that God does not miraculously restore lost limbs, a point Mr. Soriano does not address, and there is no reason to expect Mr. Brain to respond to his argument. — Saaber 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This refutation is the best one I have seen. By the way, his "criticism of religion" is at the moment exclusively focused on Christianity with the way Brain cites passages of the Bible to prove his point.  He doesn't pay any attention to the theology of any other religion.--71.108.10.6 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the argument itself is a... I don't know the word for it. False assumption something. It's tying God's existence to him healing amputees. It's based off of the assumption that God miraculously heals people (outside of special events in the bible where it matters). If that's not true, then he's got no argument to make. Then also you have to idea about are most miracles interfering with nature or just setting up very unlikely events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkreeHunter (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * that "refutation" is more of a faith based opinion and less of a real debunking, so its not appropriate here but this article should have a "criticism" section - if there are any credible criticisms of these arguments Mrrealtime (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I put back Brains like to atheism because this page is about him. Therefore, whether he is right or wrong is off the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.106.204 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Marshall Brain's atheist websites
I posted a link which responds to one of Marshall Brain's atheist websites on the article about Marshall Brain. I received a message saying that Wikipedia is not a compendium of links, and thus it was irrelevant. I don't see that it is, especially since it has no problem with merely linking to the atheist websites, and thus becoming a compendium of links.

The site in question is here: http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.147.118 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your site doers not answer Brain's question. Here's what it says:

''Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. '''Why not? Those are perfectly legitimate methods for God to allow the prayer to be answered. Scientists have developed many incredible ways of solving this problem, and God gave them the brains to figure that out. Why shouldn't they use it?''' Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother. I hardly think this is anywhere near "the same way," Mr. Brain.''

Yes, create a prayer circle to make a leg or else out of nothing. You well ended this paragraph by asking to pray god to do a miracle, just like for Jenna. Yet, nothing happens, no amputees are restored. You later said this would be a show, and god wouldn't like that. Well, it's the same show they did for Jeanna (and many other people all over time and places in the world). If you think god wouldn't like big circles, fine, make a small one. It won't work.

Now, Scientits have found ways to deal with amputees, by robotic implants. If they can do it, why bother god? Because only a really tiny fraction of humankind has money to afford those solutions. Not all in this world is US and its soldiers. And what about those almost 2000 years without these solutions to amputees? Answering that people could use hooks for hands and wood sticks for legs is way low.

And if we shouldn't bother god with things we can do or use, why you -religious people- bother him with every detail in your lives? Prayer should only be for amputees or cases like Jeanna

The second paragraph in the Exploration of Christianity and Jesus section seems to be written from a Christian point of view. I disagree with much of what Brain says about Christianity but it should still be written from a neutral point of view. I think the whole paragraph should be deleted. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewishworldreview.com?
Jewishworldreview.com has some unique and (as far as I can tell - not plagiarized) "howstuffworks" articles from Marshall Brain. [ - > http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0209/HowStuffWorks_poison.php3 ] Can someone say whether these are truly original to Mr. Brain and therefore worthy of mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.90.125 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
What is the proper way to cite personal experiences and e-mail? I added the Controversy section because I believe it's relevant, just as any controversy in any other article about people or groups. 93.63.251.100 (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no proper way because you are not meant to do that for Wikipedia! Your personal experience is just that, a personal experience. I am not doubting your words, but the rules of Wikipedia specific forbids this kind of action. See "original research". If you want to tell the world about your experience, then you should spread the word around using other media, until an established article reports your case. Then come back to Wikipedia and cite those reliable sources. Don't use Wikipedia as your own personal propaganda machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.142.132 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not "propaganda", it's the truth, but I see what you mean about "original research". Doesn't change the fact that Marshall Brain plagiarized my work and benefitted from it. 82.107.240.161 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)