Running after miracles is a bad idea because:

§      God being almighty does not make mistakes so miracles, changing the way nature works say by making the Virgin Mary appear, are done to make people see what the true religion is.  But the very fact that he needs miracles to persuade people shows that he does make mistakes.  If he had organised the spread of the word of God better and made people brighter and more interested, just by giving us the same brain faculties that very religious people have that cause their religiosity, when it comes to religion more than anything else there would be no need for the miracles for after all the faith has to make sense and be the most credible faith on earth for otherwise all the miracles of the day are of no assistance.

§      If miracles are meant to convert us to what religion calls the truth, its teachings, then why do we just do and think what will gratify us?  We do not believe in religion unless we get pleasure from it - even if it is just the pleasure of believing something because you are afraid to deny it for God will get you if you do - so God should change our feelings to get us to accept doctrines for we can’t help our feelings anyway if he wants us to believe.  Miracles deny that there is a God for they speak of supernatural incompetence.

§      All miracles are malignant and unfair because you are more sure that pain exists than you are that a miracle happened and miracles call you to suffering on the grounds of religious faith, all religions say you have to suffer to obey them, so you undergo what is certain for what is of inferior certainty.  This is still true if you have seen the miracle yourself and yet the miracle asks you to trust in a revelation suggesting that we need help from above to determine right and wrong and cannot do it ourselves meaning doing what you are told matters more than stopping pain.  It is even worse to take a miracle or revelation seriously when you have not seen it so people reporting miracles are making you evil. 

§      Miracles are accused of saying natural law is not always the same and so that it is not really law that this is a criminal suggestion.  Believers agree but dissent in saying that nature has to have laws before natural law can be changed to allow a miracle to take place.  But the effect, which is what counts, is the same so when it is bad to oppose belief in the stability of natural law it is bad to accept miracles as true.

§      They say a miracle is not a contradiction and that to say Jesus rose from the dead is not a contradiction for a contradiction would be to say Jesus was dead and risen in the same way at the same time.  It is bad to believe in what contradicts itself for we are made to be reasonable logical people and need logic to help the world.  They are only guessing that miracles are not contradictions for they still might be.  For example, it would be a contradiction to say Jesus rose from the dead if there is no power to raise him up.  It is better not to believe in what may be a contradiction for you don’t want to have anything to do with contradictions.  You don’t need to believe in the resurrection so it is evil to believe in it.  It is better to assume that miracles are hoaxes or tricks of nature.  Whatever they are they are certainly bad and no good they do can justify them for they attack the foundation of good which is reason and wrong ideas produce wrong behaviour.  You have to assume that miracles are possible before you can say a miracle has happened.  You are using an assumption to resolve a contradiction which is irrational.  Only reason can resolve contradictions not assumptions.

§      David Hume was right that a miracle is such a strange event that it needs better evidence than anything else would need for the stranger and more unlikely the event looks from our perspective (after all only a handful see miracles) the more evidence we justly require for it.  For example, suppose a bizarre natural event like a volcano starting up in your garden you would need to see it with your own two eyes rather than believe even reliable people when they tell you about it.  You can’t risk making a fool of yourself by believing them.  This is far more true of a miracle which is a crazier event.  Nobody has the right then to ask you to believe in their testimony that a miracle happened for when nature works according to fixed laws nearly all of the time and a miracle changes that law then the miracle is a very unlikely event.

§      You never know if it is strange and unknown natural laws did the miracles which means they are not miracles or if it was the supernatural.  Miracles cannot be intended to convince you that the supernatural exists when you need to assume that miracles are supernatural.  Assuming is no good for it’s the same as guessing.  You might as well assume the supernatural exists without seeing miracles or hearing of them and if that is allowable miracles should not be happening for they would need to happen for very serious reasons and God would only be doing them as a last resort.  The miracle is not as important as its message so when you can assume you have to let others assume what they like even if it is that a brand new faith is true.  You cannot use miracles as evidence for God or religion.  You cannot believe their message just because you were given it but you have to use your head to see if the message is plausible.  In that case, God should not have been doing the miracle but simply discreetly giving you the light that you need.  Miracles would indicate that whatever is doing them is an incompetent stupid force.  Miracles should not be found to be sources of comfort.

§      There is no need to believe that God does any miracles.  All the Christians can say is that we should for he might be doing miracles that we have heard of.  Maybe the Devil, who likes to look good, does them all and for some mysterious purpose known only to himself.  The Devil could do loads of good healing miracles just so that freethinkers might attack religion more so you never know if the source of a miracle is good or bad.  Maybe it’s a good-hearted god but one who does not see much value in honesty.  Why assume it is God?  Assuming is no use and any miracle that asks you to do it is definitely of the Devil.  If assuming is okay then you may assume that the feats of top magicians are really miracles. 

§      When scientists disagree on what is inexplicable and on what kind of God or not exists or indeed if any exists according to their experiments it warns that allegedly scientifically verified miracles are still not worth believing in.  You should only believe in a miracle as a last resort when you have eliminated the possibility of lying or mistakes having been made.  Few of us can be a match for the scientists for it is all so complicated and so we can’t know who is right.

§      Believers might say that science has verified that an event was inexplicable.  But no scientist can say it was a miracle for inexplicable does not equal miracle.  It only means you don’t know why it happened.  Unusual things do happen and we still have much to learn.  Science used to say lightning was inexplicable.  What happens is a religion tells you that certain inexplicable events are miracles and miracles are evidence that its message is true when all it is doing is assuming that miracles have happened and are from a reliable source like God.  It is saying that the inexplicable is a miracle when it seems to have happened to support its theology and is just inexplicable but not a miracle when it does not - this system is sheer fraud and deception for it is rigging the evidence.  In that case miracles cannot count as evidence at all and it is a waste of time bringing scientists in to investigate.  Religion is only guessing therefore no sensible God would waste time doing miracles just for that!  It is all a con.

§      God wants us to listen to him not men but when it is men who decide if a miracle really came from him it is clear that they get the benefit and the power and they can filter the word of God.  If men for example wanted to promulgate a false revelation that Muhammad was the real saviour they could cover up and get a dubious miracle authenticated to seem to verify that.  This is as bad in effect then as listening to them and not God.  Belief in miracles is just belief in the people who say they have seen them and not in God just as belief in a document probably written by Napoleon is not the same as belief in Napoleon for you did not see Napoleon write it.  Miracles imply then that you should be the slave of religious leaders and cranks and see God the way they want you to see him as if he does not matter and they do.  Miracles destroy spirituality and though they might speak of God they oppose him.  We agree with them that God should be opposed and his wishes trampled on like pearls before swine.  The revealer is always more valuable than the revealed for you see the revealed through their eyes.  When you worship God you are really worshipping them instead of God by proxy and they love it.

§      If a miracle is a sign from Heaven that a doctrine is true and tests persuade you that a miracle has taken place then you believe the miracle happened more strongly than you believe the message for the message cannot be tested like that and you can’t prove the message was given as reported.  When miracles are more interested in getting you to believe in miracles than in the message it is clear that miracles are just a deity childishly showing off.  The answer that God can’t do anything else and that it is a Hobson’s Choice is wrong for there are plenty of other easier bad ways to get a message across.

§      It is sectarian arrogance to say that miracles which indicate that say the Roman Catholic Church is true are real miracles while the ones reported by rival religions are trickery.  To say miracles are pointers to the truth is saying just that.  It is also arrogance to say that miracles point to the one true faith because there would be many unreported miracles that do not support this faith.  Frankly, anybody using miracles to make his religion win the argument is a liar. 

§      Using miracles as pointers to the true gospel results only in chaos for competing miracle claims can and do cancel each other out.  Anybody could fake a few books that they perhaps said they transcribed from an angel in visions that speak of another dying and resurrecting saviour who condemns Jesus as a fake and seem credible for the same reasons that religious nuts say they find the gospels credible.  All they need then is a few sworn affidavits from two or three others who are generally trusted but who have a crafty side to say the angelic visitations occurred.  It isn’t overly hard to authenticate false miracles for we authenticate loads of things that are not true.  Those who say miracles authenticate their religion are simply telling you to trust them and nobody else which is thoroughly nasty. 

§      You have to work out the theology without obvious miracles but with the help of the inspiration of God before a miracle can verify it so what do you need miracles for?  Even miracles cannot make nonsense to be non-nonsense so their message needs independent checking.  So miracles are random and arbitrary though they don’t look it.  Therefore man who says he did not kill his wife though he was caught holding the gun and that the gun miraculously fired could be telling the truth.  They weaken our faith in human testimony – the very thing they depend on!  (They contradict themselves!)  If you assume that miracles like that don’t happen  then you are saying you will only believe miracles if they fit your presuppositions which is very biased and unfair and dishonest.  It would not be right to jail that man if there is any doubt of his guilt so miracles get you marked as an evil person if you do.

§      Revelation is when God tells us something.  Even if it is just him discreetly planting a thought in your mind it is still a miracle so when miracles are bad news revelation is even more so.  The Bible belongs in the fire then just for claiming to be the word of God.

§      It is believed that if a miracle results in conversions and repentance that these good fruits prove that God was behind it.  The very fact that all believers hold that fruits show this, proves that the miracles promote the bad fruit of deception for it is wrong and self-righteous to appeal to the fruits.  Jesus said that it is by their fruits you know the true prophets from the false.  Miracles are not doing a good thing for they attract people to a faith that they would not believe in if they knew it properly which few people do.  And Jesus said that sincere people do their good works in private so if miracles result in good fruits that means the people are disobeying this rule and showing off.  So the good fruits are really bad fruits.  All false miracles have seemingly good fruits – eg, the fraudulent apparitions of Bayside which claimed that Paul VI had been kidnapped and replaced by an impostor.  When an event happens there are good direct consequences and bad direct ones and the same holds true for the bad and neutral consequences – therefore to boast that a miracle was from Heaven because of its fruits is just sheer madness and arrogance and deceptiveness for nobody can really know for it is too complicated.  The failure of the fruits argument to help proves that you cannot show that a miracle was really a force for sufficient good so you cannot repose your faith on it.  Its failure shows that the goodness is just as bad as the goodness that comes from taking a e-tablet.  The fruit is mostly bad.  When so many people find the attraction to religion that results from miracles disturbing it shows that believers just care about their spiritual thrills and not about whether miracles might be harmful.  When most of us live without seeing miracles and so without the fruits it is clear that it is best to assume they are bad.  What is so special about miracle mongers that we should take their claims seriously?  Who do they think they are?

§      The most important test of a miracle that really came from God would be the truth of its message.  Truth would be the main fruit for without truth we cannot see what good is or what is right so all the good results in the world cannot justify belief in a miracle that is either a hoax or from the Devil but was taken for a miracle from God.  There can be no doubt that the big attraction about miracles is the good fruits but this itself is a mistake proving that no miracle can be from God for no miracle seeks to correct this mistake.  It is the fruit we want not the miracle and who made us like that?  God.  It is selfish to value good from a miracle more than good for itself.  Miracles result in vice that looks like virtue.

§      The miracles of Christianity are alleged to be the best verified and they boast about their investigative scientific approach.  But these miracles are supposed to bolster the evidence that Christianity which teaches that the resurrection of Jesus was the supreme and therefore the best verified miracle ever which is not true.  There are many miracles which have better evidence than four short books of unknown authorship with loads of gaps and twelve witnesses whose alleged deaths by martyrdom we can know nothing about for sure.  No God would raise Jesus who was so evil that he claimed that sinners who die will go to Hell forever.  We see and touch one another and we cannot be as sure as that that God exists and yet we are expected to have faith that people we know can go to Hell and this should be approved of all for this God.  When Christian miracles verify error it is clear that miracles are not signs and should not be considered as such.  Naturally, modern miracles would be more credible for people know human nature better and know science better these days.  When miracles have plenty of concern for calling us to prayer and none for the unspeakable crimes we commit against animals mainly by doing nothing for them it is clear that this talk about fruits is only sanctimonious nonsense.  It is better to save animals from suffering than to pray for praying and a good God will be satisfied with one brief prayer for it is quality not quantity that matters and prayers offered when you are sinning are worthless and trying to take God for a fool.  The fruits people are saying they know what good fruits are which is quite an arrogant boast for we rarely can judge.

§      The Church says that if you don’t believe in people who testified to miracles you can’t believe in any human testimony so if you reject the testimony of miracles you are committing a great sin and are opposing the message of God.  Clearly it cannot be wicked to disbelieve for any other reason.  This argument has no relevance or value for nobody believes every testimony and everybody will be sceptical of some testimonies though they look watertight and that is fair enough.  Therefore if you want to reject a testimony even if you think you see the Virgin Mary and she is giving you the testimony that is your right and it is no sin to do that.  Miracles then are not calls to conversion and repentance for they cannot succeed for we have the right to ignore them.  They are just bizarre.  If the Church argument is true, then we should listen to any and especially what most testimonies say.  Most miracle testimonies speak of miracles that do not defend any religious system of doctrine or defend religions that deny that dogma matters or religions and beliefs which are obviously wrong and harmful.   We can live perfectly normal lives and believe that human testimony is always to be taken seriously except for miracles for miracles are too fantastic.