The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 921 times Debate No: 32718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




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.


You can be a scientifically minded atheist and still believe that inexplicable events occur, there many scientific mysteries to the universe. In the realm of quantum mechanics you get results that are seemingly impossible. A few of these scientific anomalies are:

The Double Slit Experiment (
Dark Matter (
Dark Energy (
Tetralneutrons (

Under our almost universal set of physical laws there exists a select few anomalies which act outside the generally agreed upon standard model of the physical universe. Under these fringe laws there exists such extreme exceptions to fundamental logic which still rationally acts outside the norm. For instance, unobserved matter is in multiple states simultaneously, because it is unknown for sure what state is really is in ( Something can have form but virtually no weight ( Certain particles can also travel through seemingly solid matter. All this exists in the world of quantum mechanics.

As an atheist as well as a scientists I can say that scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural. The only exception being that supernatural implies that it exists outside of being somehow while all this actually does exist is the physical/natural world. Why they act outside of our natural laws is a question to be asked.
Debate Round No. 1


you haven't met the burden of showing comparable things happening to atheists, that I have shown happening to those connected to something faith related.
all you have shown are some things in general that are inexplicable. I see your point, inexplicable things occur, and could be said the same here, doesn't mean "miracles" per se. but if I don't see things happening to athestis etc that I do w those related to faith, it's not far to conclude something more exists here.

I appreciate that you are not trying to tell me to show me, or are bickering with me about the rules. like most who take this debate. you are doing as I expected in that you are saying probability things just occur, there are possibliy alternative explanations etc.


Well you see you are trying to get me argue things I don't believe. Again I am arguing that seemingly miracles or supernatural events occur to everyone, not any one group of people because groups of people are human constructs to which the natural world is not responsive to. To argue why any one medical case suddenly yielded an amazing turn around because the subject was religious is laughable. Medical 'miracles' occur due to adept medical skills, there is no greater power deciding who shall live an who shall die haha, how dramatic.
Debate Round No. 2


it was a simple request, to find unexplicable things that appeared supernatural, happening to atheists like they do to theists. yet you haven't done it. that's the bottom line


The burden of proof is not on me it is on you friend. Can you even prove such things happen at all? You cannot. You fail to defend you own point, and denigrating my own does not suffice in this case you theist. My opponent has lost fairly and with dignity. I have provided proof of the seemingly supernatural occurring. Referring to these mathematical equations which describe the world as miracles would be a disservice to this scientific advancement.

Miracles, i.e acts of god or a greater omnipotent force, do not exist, whereas this is proven science. Christian health or Christian science is quite the hoax, and it has cost the lives of children consequently ( Relying on a somehow benevolent deity to cure disease and ailments is nothing short of reckless endangerment and in court has stood as reckless homicide.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Atheists, seems to be used as a derogatory. When all it means is to not believe, much like a christian not believing in islam or judaism, makes them an Atheist. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Question everything thank you.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
you should have taken the debate roylatham, that is the best response I've gotten yet.
not that I don't have responses and such, but very formidable argument indeed.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
The links in the challenge are broken. When you copy a link, you cannot copy the shortened version of the link. You have copy the original URL or use "copy link location" on the shortened version.

I don't see how it is possible to verify the original diagnosis once the person is cured. the best a medical board could do is check if the diagnosis was made by a reputable physician or hospital, bt even with a reputable organization, misdiagnosis is not rare.

A scientific study was done to see if praying for a person caused faster recovery. The study showed a 10% advantage of prayer. This prompted a much larger study, which showed no advantage to being prayed for.

The royal family of Britain is systematically prayed for in Anglican churches. No one doubts the prayers are sincere. The royal family has no better health than non-royals.

Six million people visit Lourdes each year, producing about four miracle cures, a rate of 1 in 1.5 million. In some types of "incurable" cancer, spontaneous remission occurs at a rate of more than one per 100,000. I don't think Lourdes is creating miracles. It's possible they are documenting rare cases of spontaneous remission.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
i could caps it out, to get that in my favor if im going to repeat it often.
in generally i dont care about wins, just discerning truth. i get knocked for grammar, sources etc. the people who vote are usually repeat offenders and folks i debated before etc, and what i say in debate is controversial so that's not in my favor either.
Posted by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
The evolution of this debate:

Here's the first version:

Then there were about five of these:

Now what, seven of this version?

You've lost every one of these that I've seen, only to return with a slightly revised version that should prove you right. . . But you're proven wrong again. If you're really so determined to win this debate, at least consider using correct capitalization, so you could get that vote in your favor, or at least neutral.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
i like to post it a good number of times, to weed out all the terrible arguments and focus on the good stuff. so that i can develop my arguments and verify that what i post must be true, at least as best i can tell. i will only post occassionally the argument in teh future.
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
How many times will you cut and paste the exact same debate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Controverter 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Apart from sources, con thwarted pro. Both had reliable sources.
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G, as con found the shift key. Arguments, as Pro had BOP, and failed to demonstrate the truth of her own argument.
Vote Placed by Diirez 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments were bad. Pro used all Wikipedia and a Christian biased source. Con however, used ONE actual reliable source. Reliable sources points therefore are given to Con.