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

scientifically inexplicable stuff happens that appears supernatural but almost never 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 451 times Debate No: 55357
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




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)

an organization from the catholic church that does similar investigations

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
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.


I will refute the claim that supernatural things occur to any people except atheists.

Examples of these can be found in numerous sources such as Youtube.

An atheist had an incurable disease, but was healed:

There are several cases of this happening to atheists given that you do your research. The reason for it being that Christians receive more miracles is that you focus more on Christians and ignore the religious experiences that happen to atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. which lead them to Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1


i don't ignore christian 'miracles'. i just dont see them them much, if at all after poking holes in them. con seems to suggest that many of the 'miracles' are to lead them to jesus. sure, as a christian, i would speculate that that is true. but this point does 't really have much to do with whether or not the 'miralces' occur or not.

perhaps i can take the youtube video to say that the miracles od occur, but as a path to christianity. it doesn't happen to others without some sort of connection to christianity.

con's contentions are mostly quibbles that do not connect very well to the main jist of the debate.


Pro's main claim is that scientifically inexplicable things happen to mostly Christians and theists, but that it almost never occurs to atheists.

Pro then claims this:

"perhaps i can take the youtube video to say that the miracles do occur, but as a path to christianity. it doesn't happen to others without some sort of connection to christianity."

Again, i can bring up examples of supernatural things that have no connection to Christianity such as these Hindu near-death experiences:

Same with Muslim near-death experiences:

This isn't the point, Pro claimed "scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists", i gave evidence of 1 case to debunk that claim, therefore i have countered Pro's argument.
Debate Round No. 2


i wouldn't classify NDE's as miracles.

sure i guess you technically fulfilled the debate requirement. it doesn't do much per the main gist of what's being debated, whether atheists have a similar basis to say they too have 'apparently supernatural' things happen to them. if it's just here and there as a springboard to christianity, i wouldn't say their basis is at all similar.


That will be a discussion for another time..

For this debate, i have fulfilled the requirement as you stated above.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Duncan 2 years ago
The Placebo effect only takes place for people who can believe its effects. Religious people are more prone to the placebo because they often perform ceremonies with the hopes of being cured, whereas atheists are more prone to doubt, making them less susceptible.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
there are many religious beliefs and ideas that have given way to science facts, but never has there been science ideas that given way to religious faith. When a believer has no explanation for some unknown phenomenon it has to be a god, because saying "I don't know" just won't do. There are things we don't know, things we my never know, but it is better to say "I don't know" then to pretend to know things you don't know, and call it faith. Faith is a unreliable way to the truth, science, reason, logic and critical thinking may not have all the answers, but unlike the religious, it never pretends to know the truth. So keep your religious superstitions to explain your supernatural world, and I will use science, reason, logic and critical thinking to explain the only world I know to be true, the natural world. Have a nice day.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
The resolution is too awkwardly stated. And on top of that, you said this:

"The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt"

which assumes that doctors never make mistakes, or that doctors know everything. Which, they don't. No one is perfect, and no one knows everything. So, just because a person said something, doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. Just because a doctor says something is "incurable", doesn't mean it actually is. And if said "incurable" disease goes away, that doesn't mean that there was a miracle. It means the doctor was wrong.

This debate is really not worth anyone's time, sorry. Bleeding statues, miracle healers and all that has been put to rest for a long time. We know it's fake.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Just because science can not explain something now, it doesn't mean it will never be able to explain it, because knowledge scientists have is growing.
Posted by Dynasty2468 2 years ago
This is why I hate the Religion section. Too many topics about Atheist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: DairyGirl conceded that Truth Seeker proved his requirement. In doing this she didn't fulfill her burden of proof.