The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 36285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists. these are apparent miracles.

please show something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called an apparent 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. there are tons of examples for theists, in previous debates i shown them. most credible people dont dispute hat things appear to be miracles, just that they claim there's alterative explanations. im not going to do a bunch of work to find them when it's readily available. . someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example. here are some documented miacles, and things that are inexplicable.

here is a list of incurable illnesses that have been cured, and medically documented...

lourdes is a religious place where many healings are said to occur. they have an organization set up to examine them (similar to the congregation for saints that the catholic church uses, but said to be even more rigorous)

here is a list of incurable diseases, that were cured

their criteria...
For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:
The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

The steps to verify the claims...
Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Most of these are dismissed quickly. Three to five each year are investigated more thoroughly, by drawing up a Medical Bureau, comprising any doctors who were present in Lourdes at the time the apparent cure took place (this is the rationale for all members to notify the bureau of their visits to Lourdes).
The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).
If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs. CMIL meets annually. A full investigation requires that one of its members investigates every detail of the case in question, and immerses him/herself in the literature around that condition to ensure that up-to-date academic knowledge is applied to the decision. This investigator may also consult with other colleagues about the case.
This information is presented at a CMIL meeting. Also present at the meeting are the head of the Lourdes Medical Bureau and the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes (currently this is Nicolas Brouwet). The cured subject is not normally present.

medically documented of incurable illessness..... what more would you require of me? that is a sincere question, not rhetorical
i will keep looking for studies and such, and may redebate you. if i deem it necesssay, if you do too good of a job as devil's advocate.
at a certain point, it is more the profound skeptisicms of the person, who needs to see it with their own eyes. than it is the lack of documentation etc.

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, it would be extremely very small percentage wise.
as of now i'd be happy with just couple or a few examples.

ive shown some examples happening to theists, it shouldnt be hard to find some happening to atheists.


Well Dairy Girl, there is a scientific explanation for all of these events, and it is an interesting one too.

The Placebo Effect is a strange ability of the mind which allows it to cure and treat illnesses and injuries with only thoughts. Man follow a lifestyle called "The Secret" based on it. When new medicines are tested, some patients are given a sugar pill instead of the medicine to see if they merely imagine the problem themselves. Placebo is the mind forcing the body to react to a problem that may or may not exist, and is one of the mysteries of the brain. It is why some can be given water and told it is a medicine, and still be cured, or why those skeptical of the treatment may not be cured. It is not so much to athiests as to non believers, as if a religious person receives a pill and thinks they may be sick from it, their mind can artificially create the feeling of nausea itself, and prevent the product from working. The Placebo effect can easily explain this Dairy Girl, so I'll wait and see how you respond to this.

Debate Round No. 1


placebo. problem is that i never see placebo causing phhysical regeneration or spontaneous regeneration of serious diseases. some of those listed had severe nerve and vessel damage etc that heals. placebo ive only seen happen for smaller diseases, thjings immune related that can't really be seen etc. also we probbaly should be able to get placebo to work on atheists, even if it's not something GOd related, on more serious diseases.
also technically you seem to be essentially conceding the proposition. you are admitting these thing dont happen to atheists, which is what i asked to see examples of. you instead try to explain why it happens to theists and not atheists. you may have some points, but they dont meet the criteria of the debate.


First up, Dairy Girl, the placebo has cured larger, more serious diseases. You haven't seen it because it's brain activity, and we still don't fully know how the brain works. But it's not supernatural. It's explained as the brain causing a massive override, which can even cause harm in cases, where people ignore injuries because the body administered its own painkillers. Also, that wouldn't be conceding to the concept that it never happens to athiets, as the placebo effect can happen to anyone. The difference is the hysteria that religious people have. For every person that gets cured at Lourdes, there's a hundred people who don't. You don't hear from them because they aren't interesting, and the religious followrs don't advertise when their methods don't work in the same way movies don't advertise their bad reviews. The placebo effect is an uncontrollable, but scientific and natural phenomenon. Your move,

Debate Round No. 2


so where are the examples of things happening for more serious illness?
where's the examples of things happening to nonlourdes or religous contexts if you say it does happen? you can't just say you dont hear of them cause they aren't interesting etc, cause that's a cop out. there surely has to be examples, and if the religous community can show examples, teh nonreligous have the burden to show them too. that's the whole point of the debate, an it's not been honored.

also there is some confusions on your part as to whether they do occur elsewhere or whether it's all attributeable to placebo and how those religous are mentally prone to something like that that would work.

as it appears now, you are jsut making a bunch of assertions, with no necessary basis in reality per examples etc, and reasoning yourself in abstractions to a predetermined outcome. without evidence, your arguments fail for a lack of basis in the real world.


Do you want me to just list your sources? Those are cases of placebo. They happen to religious people more because people who are easy to trick trick themselves easily too. They're just not reported as placebo events because the healed person thinks it a miracle. The placebo effect is difficult to control or understand because it's a product of the human brain, something we cannot fully understand yet. But it is not supernatural. Placebo can be as small as you not noticing a cut, and only feeling the pain when you look at it. But the larger cases are often seen more as supernatural events because religious people attribute it to magic a miracle. While they do not happen as much to athiests, who are less susceptible to placebo, placebo still happens to them, so these are not unexplainable, supernatual religion exclusive occurences.

If you require an explantion of the placebo effect, you could oogle it yourself. Lazy?

Now, I await your next response.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
i dont know what happened to all the votes cast in this debate that are now gone. something similar happened in the other debate. maybe they are posters who came and deactivate or something? i had twenty against Duncan in that debate for example.
No votes have been placed for this debate.