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

scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 32646
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




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 here's another

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 accept this debate and hope it is a good one.

I would like to start by clarifying that because of the nature of Pro's statement, I only have to show one or two examples of miracles happening to atheists.

I have found three instances of miracles happening to atheists. Any one of these should be enough to disprove Pro's statement.

The first miracle happened to an atheist that went through a difficult spine surgery. His name was not provided. This surgery left him in a great deal of pain and required another surgery. This surgery was also unsuccessful, causing the man even greater pain. At the point where he was contemplating suicide, the man believed that he saw God walk in, at which point the pain stopped. After that, he was fine, with only minimal post-surgery soreness. [1]

The next miracle happened to an atheist man that had cancer. He had been fighting it for some time without progress. After some time, he allowed a religious friend's priest who preformed a ceremony and sent him on his way. "Jim [the atheist with cancer] and Sally [his wife] returned to Britain and Dr. Westcott examined him and discovered, to his shock and consternation, that Jim's cancer had undergone "a sudden and deep remission." What particularly perplexed him, as Dr. Westcott explained to his fellow physicians and journal readers, was that Jim and Sally "are both pretty hardboiled, and not religious. Here was no believing couple: they had little faith in general." [2]

The final example of miracles for atheists happens in the Bible. There are numerous accounts of Jesus healing tax collectors, harlots, centurions, and sinners, many of whom were not religious. If even the Bible shows that miracles can happen to atheists, than I should win this debate.

There is really nothing that Pro can do to win this debate now. I have shown that miracles can happen to atheists, so I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


i thank you for taking the challenge as stated, and using examples.
but they are insufficient.
if an atheist thinks he saw God walk in, and is healed, that means he's really not an atheist as he saw God etc. he must at least in some sense believe if he saw God himself. as part of conversion, it's too borderline to say it happened to an atheist.

if a man is healed by a priest, it is the priest who healed the man. this may have been a technical win of this debate by you as the miracle occurred to an atheist. i assume he's an atheist anyway, you jus said he had little faith. so maybe it wasn't a technical win. too vague.
even if this is a technical win, it still shows the miracle happened via the priest and not due to the atheist. it means if you remove all faith etc, nothing happens to atheists. (maybe i should put at "but no to atheists who are abscent faith from themself and anyone else")
the gist of my point, is that you'd expect a pure atheist with nothing faith related to him, would have a miracle happen to him. perhaps you won on technicality, but the primary essence of my points still remain.

you also didn't provide links to your citations or even written sources to look it up. just some numbers.


Yes, I'm sorry about the citations. I forgot to put them in the round, but i put them in a comment when I realized that I forgot them. Here they are.

The main point of my opponent's arguments here is that the people form my examples weren't actually atheists or that the miracle didn't happen to them. Under inspection, neither of these points hold up.

On my first example, the Pro says that if the man saw God, then he couldn't be an atheist. Firstly, the title of the article that I got the story from is "A Near Death Miracle: The ATHEIST Who Saw God". Second, the man was an atheist until the miracle happened. It was because of the miracle that the man became a theist, so the miracle still happened to an atheist.

On my second example, the Pro says that the miracle doesn't count because it was the priest that did the healing. This is not a sufficient rebuttal because the miracle happened to the atheist, no matter who preformed the miracle. Also, he was an atheist because the article says he was "pretty hard boiled, and not religious". The part about little faith in general was more about faith in people and life.

The Pro completely ignores my point about Jesus healing atheists in the Bible, so unless he is trying to discredit the Bible, then that point stands.

I am winning this debate because I still have three good examples of miracles happening to atheists which the Pro has not sufficiently disproved. Also, Pro's only arguments were little nit-pickings about whether or not the people were technically atheists.
Debate Round No. 2


thank you for demonstrating that miracles occur.
the bible's claims cannot be observed or checked into, it's weak as a standard, even theists would acknowledge that.
i do have some points about whether they were atheists, whether they could be said to be atheists still, etc etc.... but on technicality i suppose i concede the debate.
my ultimate bottom line beyond all the technical points is that faith and or God causes miracles to happen, and this has been established.


Thank you for the good debate.

I do agree that faith in God does facilitate miracles, but God can extend his assistance to anyone.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Gondun 3 years ago
Sorry, I forgot to put my sources on the first round, so here they are now. I will also include them in round two.

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
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 honestly just skimmed this debate. But every other one of DairyGirl's spam debates has been lost, and I'm getting tired of these cluttering up the debate list. Con had better conduct by not spamming the same debate repeatedly, Con used the shift key, Con's arguments were valid, as opposed to Pro's repetitive cut and paste from their other parallel debates. Con wins sources because all the sources were reliable, but Pro only had one and Con had two.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 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: Concession