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

scientifically inexplicable things occur that appear 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 55355
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
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)

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.


An atheist would be hard pressed to explain in scientific terms how Jesus transformed water into wine.
Debate Round No. 1


con does nothing to rebut my claims and forfeits


Con produced-'something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called an apparent miracle had it happened to a religous person'- as per request.
Debate Round No. 2


jibber jabber


Argument extended.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Apparently it isn't. I prefer to do things in a superior way, but I clearly have to accommodate this inferior ideology. No problem. I'll adjust.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
All debates get treated the same, Wylted. It isn't up to you, any debater, or any voter to determine whether a vote is worthy of being moderated.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
There is an extremely obvious winner here Whiteflame. It isn't like you're modding a high quality debate or one where a fight was even put up.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
Wylted, it's the same problem as someone saying that a person with 10 sources should get the source vote over a person with 2 sources. The sources need to matter more. Numbers aren't enough to award source points, and it's really not that hard to put in another sentence explaining why these sources mattered to you. You may not like it, but it's not unreasonable.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
I'll get to this in the morning. Remind me when this get's close to the end. Both the removal of the vote and the reporting of it was retarded, but I don't want to see you guys punished for the absurdity of others.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Wylted// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to use sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Doesn't explain why Pro's source support tilted the debate in his favor or even why the sources were relevant at all. When awarding sources, an RFD must show why there was a significant difference in source from both debaters and *why* this difference impacted the outcome of the debate.
Posted by AndyHood 1 year ago
Scientifically inexplicable things happen? Well, yes, they do... and that is precisely how science proceeds, adapting itself as necessary to be able to explain (and predict) things that the body of scientific understanding had not hitherto been capable of.

Some of these things appear supernatural? Yes, yes, that's true - but only generally to those who have a predisposition to believe in supernatural things... that atheists rarely describe anything as miraculous is hardly surprising. What point are you trying to make, that theists are gullible? If that's not your intention then I think that you'll have to do a better job of taking at least one concrete example of what you consider a definitive miracle.
Posted by MrJosh 1 year ago
I would take this, but I don't feel like wading through all of that.
Posted by Kwiptix 1 year ago
I agree with your premise. However you can also turn this around and say: Religious philosophically inexplicable things occur that appear scientific but almost never to people with religious faith.
Posted by Burls 1 year ago
I can debate this without semantics. I can prove one miraculous instance that atheists will probably discount as having a scientific explanation, but can they prove it? Hurry up and finish me off on the other debate Dairygirl so I can accept this one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.