scientifically inexplicable stuff happens that appears supernatural but almost never to atheists
Debate Rounds (3)
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
For this debate, i have fulfilled the requirement as you stated above.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: DairyGirl conceded that Truth Seeker proved his requirement. In doing this she didn't fulfill her burden of proof.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.