The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Misterscruffles
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Misterscruffles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,225 times Debate No: 32572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

please show something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called a miracle had it happened to a religous person, because of its scientifically inexplicable nature.
no semantics pleas

what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example.

the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability, that a genetic deviance, or random chance etc has caused it to happen to them. (that's how evolusion occurs, someone with a genetic deviance getting their genes prominent in the population)

but I don't see these things happening to atheists.
I see plenty of evidence from chrisitans and to a lesser extent other religious folks. but I don't see it from atheists etc, why is that? they might claim that it's just not as newsworthy or interpreted that way given the lack of religious context etc.
but you'd think there's at least be noteworthy evidence, or something, at least, that shows it happens to atheists etc

also, even if i acknowledged that they may occur, as a favor from God, it would be extremely very small percentage wise.
as of now i'd be happy with just couple or a few examples.
Misterscruffles

Con

I accept Pro's challenge, and take the position that
A) If miracles are defined simply as an extraordinarily unlikely event, that they do indeed happen to atheists;
B) If a supposed incident is claimed to be a divine act of god, there will also be a plausible, non-divine explanation, and that Pro will not be able to credibly demonstrate that it is an act of god;
C) In either case, Pro cannot credibly demonstrate how often miracles occur.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the burden in this debate is on con to show something that would be a miracle had it happened to a theist. he still has not shown it. just two or three examples would be sufficient. as of now he's not even shown one. I don't see how it's my burden to show how often miracles occur, and don't see why this really even matters. all we need is a copule examples about apparent miracles happeneing to atheists. don't see it.
I wouldn't define it as extaordinaily unlikely as that's just a matter of statistics and probability, as far as we can tell what are called miracles defy scientific explanation. better explanation, scientifically inexplicable, appearing supernatural.
perhaps a plausible explanation exists for most miracles but we still don't see the same types of thing happening to atheists. also when it's something like seeing without retinas, youd be stretching plausibility, it basically defies natural laws etc.
Misterscruffles

Con

"the burden in this debate is on con to show something that would be a miracle had it happened to a theist. he still has not shown it. just two or three examples would be sufficient. as of now he's not even shown one. I don't see how it's my burden to show how often miracles occur, and don't see why this really even matters. all we need is a copule examples about apparent miracles happeneing to atheists. don't see it."

Pro misunderstands how the BOP in this argument works. Pro made an affirmative statement that miracles occur, but almost never to atheists. My counter argument is that divine miracles may or may not occur (and pro cannot demonstrate this either way) and that the frequency of divine miracles, should they occur, cannot be demonstrated by pro. At no point did I make an absolute statement on whether divine miracles occurred or not, or the frequency of such miracles.

"I wouldn't define it as extaordinaily unlikely as that's just a matter of statistics and probability, as far as we can tell what are called miracles defy scientific explanation."

Then it is on you do demonstrate that they happen, that said events are divinely inspired and defy scientific explanation.

"better explanation, scientifically inexplicable, appearing supernatural."

Whether something "appears supernatural" or not is irrelevant to whether it is supernatural or not. A modern car would "be without a natural explanation" and "appear supernatural" to a medieval knight, even though the physics of cars are well understood nowadays.

"perhaps a plausible explanation exists for most miracles but we still don't see the same types of thing happening to atheists."

Again, the onus is on you to show that this happens. I am not making a statement as to whether miracles occur or not, I simply stated that for anything you will bring up as a miracle there is a plausible naturalistic explanation for, and that you will be unable to credibly demonstrate that such a supposed miracle is supernatural rather than natural.

"also when it's something like seeing without retinas, youd be stretching plausibility, it basically defies natural laws etc."

There are many different models of eyes in the natural world, from simple light-sensitive patches to the complex camera like eyes of an eagle. There are a great many species who do not have a complex camera like eye with an Iris Lens, and Retina. The nautilus, for example, has an eye that functions much like the most simple of cameras.[1] Planarians (Family Planariidae, non parasitic flatworms) have simple eye cups.[2] Some microscopic organisms, such as Euglenas, have simple light sensitive patches with no retina called "Stigma".[3] The evolution of the eye has been extensively documented[4][5][6]; to say that an organism being able to see without a retina is a "divine miracle" would require a profound lack of knowledge about modern science.

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
[6] http://to.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con is just letting all his bad arguments sweep under the carpet, things like asking me to show how often miracles etc.. things that are irrelvant he doesn't bring up again, and ignores.
he also ignores the point he made that we define miracle as highly unlikely, instead of scientifically inexplicable appearing supenatural

i shown in another debate an example of a miracle that was used for the beatification of a saint in the catholic church. i also told you of the retina example.
you are tying to argue plausbility, an alterantive explanation. problem is human eyes aren't like most eyes, and it's still inexpcliable, and apeparing supenatural. there might be an alt reason, but it remains to be seen if it's true.
wouldnt it so ironic and tragic if we are having miracles stare us right in the face, the most probable sounding idea... and we refuse to accept it to justify our preexisting beleif in the lack of miracles being possible?
if i had my arm cut off, and it grew back after i prayed.... and you said it wasn't a miracle, how much will it take to convince you? take it for what it is, yknow.

plus at the end of the day, im showing examples of things that fit my definition of miracle and most definitions... and still to this moment, youve yet to show an example happening to atheists.
you jsut say what i said in the beinging post, that they wouldnt call it a miracle is it's ignored. maybe, but you should be abel to find at least one example of something that woulda been called a miracle had it happened to a theist.
yet you've not done.

it was a simple request, and you've yet to show anything.
Misterscruffles

Con

"con is just letting all his bad arguments sweep under the carpet, things like asking me to show how often miracles etc.."

Uh, miss, that was part of the premise of your debate.

"things that are irrelvant he doesn't bring up again, and ignores."

Well, yea, if a point is irrelevant to he debate, there's no point to debating it.

"he also ignores the point he made that we define miracle as highly unlikely, instead of scientifically inexplicable appearing supenatural"

I was stating that if you were to argue miracle in the sense of highly extraordinary event, that sort of miracle happens to atheists too, as opposed to the definition of miracle as divine intervention, which you appeared to use for most of this debate.

"i shown in another debate an example of a miracle that was used for the beatification of a saint in the catholic church."

No source cited (you didn't mention which debate you are referring to here). Even if I were to accept your premise that a miracle occurred (which I don't- there are many other explanations for supposed miracles, such as: the story was created out of whole cloth, the story was real but it did not happen the way it was written down, or the person who reported the story was delusional and could not tell what is real from what isn't) you still haven't gotten any closer to demonstrating the second part of your proposition.

"i also told you of the retina example.
you are tying to argue plausbility, an alterantive explanation. problem is human eyes aren't like most eyes, and it's still inexpcliable, and apeparing supenatural. there might be an alt reason, but it remains to be seen if it's true."

First off, I demonstrated by example of the Euglena that a retina is not required for sight. Second off, if you are asserting that a human has seen without having a functional retina or equivalent thereof, you should have provided sources. As it stands, you are asserting that an event happened which you cannot demonstrate, and asking me to prove you wrong.

"if i had my arm cut off, and it grew back after i prayed.... and you said it wasn't a miracle, how much will it take to convince you?"

Before saying that it's a miracle, you should demonstrate that it is. Numerous magicians have apparently sawed an assistant apart before putting them back together, alive and well. There are no humans who have been truly sawed in half, had their their halves separated, and than put back together, still alive. There is a track record of this happening in magic tricks[1][2][3] and not real life, thus, if you saw someone sawed in half and then put back together still alive, it would be more reasonable to believe that the whole thing was a magic trick. Likewise, if someone claimed that they lost an arm and then grew it back, it might be wise to check to see if they are genuine. If a peddler were to claim that there was a track record of arms growing back if you buy/use his product, it is on him to demonstrate that his product is genuine.

"plus at the end of the day, im showing examples of things that fit my definition of miracle and most definitions... and still to this moment, youve yet to show an example happening to atheists."

You haven't shown a track record of this happening, you've asserted it. Since you're affirming a resolution that is absolute, the BOP is on you.

"you jsut say what i said in the beinging post, that they wouldnt call it a miracle is it's ignored. maybe, but you should be abel to find at least one example of something that woulda been called a miracle had it happened to a theist."

Again, I don't have BOP, and my argument was not that miracles did or did not happen to atheists. But for the sake of argument; the "miraculous" birth of Kim Jong Il, "miraculous" recoveries from injuries, "miraculous" military victories, etc.

"it was a simple request, and you've yet to show anything."

Your resolution was "miracles occur, but almost never to atheists", and you were affirming this. You do not get to claim that you are automatically correct unless proven wrong.

You made assertions such as "what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example." without any support. You have failed to back up a single claim of yours in this debate with evidence, despite having the Burden of Proof.

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
proglib, since you have an appreciation for the comedic fodder that religions provide, lets have an encore of True Scripture :)

BrainWasters 6:3--god is good, birth defects and a one way ticket to hell for questioning him clearly validate this claim :)

Buddies 9:17--The reason for zombie worms that have sex in whale bones, made an appearance in the middle east so we would know to obey no other god nor take his name in vain, or we get a spanking. That was nice to let us know that, because, thats what friends are for :)

DevientGenie 11:10--Prayer, its like gambling, you never talk about your losses :)

RIDDLES 8:36--christiasn vs islam, who is dumber? mormon :)

CryBabies 2:37--Widdle kids will whine "Well science cant answer questions like "What is our purpose as humans on Earth?", that is correct, and Wal-Mart cannot answer those questions for you either, so go pout and stomp your feet that nobody will answer your questions and nobody will help you go potty and wipe your butt for you. Put on your big kid pants and figure out your own purpose and legacy :)

Inept 6:28--Church, a fancy name for a book club that has been stuck on the same book for thousands of years :)

Delusional 10:56--If millions of people want to believe the reason for the sub atomic world and DNA, is concerned, then by all means we should deny equal rights to marriage in a court of law :)

CURES 1:2--"Thinking", if it doesn't cure you of your religion, you're not doing it right :)

BigKids 12:49--There are many ways to describe the tool known as science, however, the best way to describe science is by David Guetta, Sexy B-I-T-C-H :)

CaptainObvious 1:18--In the 21st Century, Cumulative evolution via Non random natural selection over billions of years, is as questionable as H2O :)

LOVE 9:48--Dont worry kids, god never gives you more than you can handle, if all you can handle is eating once a week, than he will make sure you are born in Ethiopia with Starvin' Marvin :)
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
devient

Gotta love this one:

"BigKids 4:12--Being wrong is exciting to science, being wrong is terrifying to religion :)"

Not true of all religions, nor of all scientists, but very apt in the majority of cases, IMHO.

This one is hilarious:

"BigKids 7:20--There are so many scientists in hell, that its probably air conditioned by now :)"

It could be air conditioned and still be "hell," of course since [for those with IQs out of the single digits] hell is clearly a metaphor for really horrible experiences after death, not LITERALLY a hot place with a former angel with horns.

You're cracking me up, here. XD
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Calling me religious is like calling a lady bug obese :)

I understand the more we discover the less the word miracle has any place in society :)

I am proving a point to the religious widdle kids :)

True Scripture will help you understand the Genie :)

DevientGenie 2:7--For those who are smarty pants, the Genie is not deviant in any evil way, the second 'e' is testament to that fact. He is merely splashing a glass of ice water on the world :)

CURES 1:1--Free Thought is Not a curse, it's the cure :)

BigKids 4:12--Being wrong is exciting to science, being wrong is terrifying to religion :)

Inept 7:2--Evidence, religious minds use it like a cat uses a toothbrush :)

SAD 10:52--Theres more evidence that religion is a poison then there is evidence for gods :)

DUH 4:14--If the bible is true, then there definitely are other gods. Commandment: "Thou shall have no other gods before me" :)

Hypocrites 1:14--Want proof the church loves what they believe causes all kinds of evil? "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs--1 Tim 6:10.....You can make your checks out to --insert church name here-- :)

BigKids 7:20--There are so many scientists in hell, that its probably air conditioned by now :)

SAD 6:50--The instinctual desire of the religious mind to ignore evidence, is stronger than the instinctual desire of a bird to fly :)

BigKids12:37--The better your understanding of consciousness, the more your desire to do good for goodness sake. No need to get a Scooby snack or to avoid damnation. Try it. Instead of being born again, just grow up :)

LOSER 7:2--The god in the bible is so petty, that he would rather please the devil and send you to hell, than have a rational conversation about how he is an Olympic Champion at Hide and Seek :)

Idiots 5:7--The bible said it, I believe it, that settles it :)

BigKids10:12--Research is relig
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Devient.genie

Prove it! You can't!

Only religious fanatics believe in miracles.

So go pray!
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
"miracles occur, but almost never to atheists"

Obviously, youre too stupid to know what an elite scientist is then.

Go to the hospital and tell the doctor you want the miracle of prayer instead of the miracle of scientific discovery to help you recover.

Make sure you pre-order a casket, youre gonna need it and you know it :)
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
No such thing as a miracle; just probability. Jesus never changed water to wine, walked on water, etc.; all just superstitious nonsense.

Who comes up with stupid debates like this?
Posted by BrooklynHaze 3 years ago
BrooklynHaze
The perception of miracle is based on opinion. What you consider a miracle could be considered a disaster to some one else. Right?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
I also thought about the title "scientifically inexplicable things occur to theists that appear supernatural, but they almost never happen to atheists". it has its own pros and cons, that title.
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
As an agnostic former philosophy student, I *LOVE* the title of this debate.

On one level it can be seen as almost tautological--the same thing could happen to a religious person and an atheist and the religious person consider it a miracle, while the atheist look for physical rather than metaphysical explanations.

On another level, it is *possible* that religious people have things happen to them that are not well explained by every day logic and physics. It is just very difficult to prove such things if they don't have evidence that can be presented in a scientific manner.

One might also point out that schizophrenics and other crazy people experience miracles every day, and it is possible that what religious people think are miracles are hallucinations. Mass hallucinations are as possible as some of the "miracles" in the bible--angels, walking on water, feeding hundreds of people from one literal loaf of bread and glass of wine.

In my humble opinion, religious people do their deity (or deities) a disservice by trying to explain them or arguing for them with mundane physical as opposed to metaphysical arguments. "Give to the Lord that which is the Lord's, give to Caesar [or science] that which is Caesar's [science]."

On the other hand, atheists who think they can disprove deities are just as mistaken. They try to win a metaphysical argument with physical evidence. Just as much of a mistake.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
Not even going into the fact that "miracles" are not heavily documented, what on Earth are you even looking to debate here?

Just because something has no current explanation does not make it a "miracle" by default. I can't even tell what side you are trying to argue here.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by sovietsalesman39 3 years ago
sovietsalesman39
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: way better arguments
Vote Placed by jdog2016 3 years ago
jdog2016
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: God loves everyone, even atheists.....and mormans
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I also debated this person. She makes vey few actual arguments to support her burden of proof, that miracles even occur at all. It seems as though Pro does not understand that the point of a debate is each side present arguments for their side, rebuttals of the toher arguments take place with sources to back ones position, or at least solid logic to follow. Pro it seems is looking for the answer "Miracles do not happen to atheists because atheists do not believe in miracles." Which is true, but probably when she reads that statement it will read as "because they do not believe they do not get miracles." Which is of course not my meaning. we don't beleive in miracles, so tany miraculous event that happens to an atheist will be figured out, so its not a miracle anymore be cause now we know!
Vote Placed by enclave101 3 years ago
enclave101
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Where is Pro's BOP
Vote Placed by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought he did very well.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ALWAYS has burden of proof. Get that through your head.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
dairygirl4u2cMisterscrufflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar: Con because the opening sentence is a run-on, with no capitalization or punctuation when needed. Also a few spelling mistakes occurred. This occurs through the entire debate. Convincing arguments: Con because, A.) Pro didn't meet BOP. B.) Pro didn't really convince me Miracles occur in the first place let alone only to Religious people. C.) I almost gave it to Pro but they didn't provide a photo/video proof of their arm growing back (Lol) Sources: If you read the debate you saw some sources under Cons name and ZERO und Pros name.