-->
@n8nrgmi
The article you cited was authored by a guy pushing his website and book. He didn’t do any scientific research. The study he referenced totally contradicted him.
atheists can't meet their burden of proof - miracles
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@Reece101
so do you admit you dont have examples of elaborate afterlife stories?
the study my article was critiquing was flawed, as the article describes. i dont know why you keep reverting to attacking the character instead of the substance. have you read the article? there are clear differences between drugs and NDEs
drugs can have some similarities, but no one hallucinates elaborate afterlife stories from drugs.May I introduce you to shamanism...
Well stated.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Can you please critically think.
There are plenty of anecdotal stories out there.
The guy is a transpersonal psychologist (a spiritualist)
-->
@n8nrgmi
Is there any studies he referenced that backed his claims? No there is not.
-->
@Reece101
obviously it is you that needs to think critically.
you say there are plenty of stories out there, but yet you can't cite one example of an elaborate afterlife story that is based on drugs.
you say the guy is discredited, but you choose to attack character instead of substance. there is nothing that makes me think what he's saying is untrue.
and he did cite other NDE research, you just dont like his conclusions.
there are also NDE studies that show that most of the time when people describe events outside of their body, they are accurate. and there's the AWARE study that showed a couple examples of that too.
so what's your theory... that there's a story for the afterlife embedded in our DNA? or in our brain somehow? why do kids and folks who have never heard of this stuff experience the same thing? how do you explain it? why do people experience afterlife stories to begin with? "yes as a matter of fact, it's a fact that it's common for people to hallucinate afterlife stories when they die. profound, elaborate afterlife stories." claims the atheist.
atheists are just pathetic when they've been presented with facts. they stick with skepticism for the sake of skepticism.
-->
@n8nrgmi
a miracle is when something occurs that is impossible according to science
Ok. So where does a god come into that.? Nature maybe full of "miracles" for want of a better word.
Is it a "miracle" when a woman wakes from a coma speaking and other accent or language? Because there is no mention of the doctors or the woman claiming it to be miraculous.
-->
@Stephen
i dont know if that language thing is a miracle. but i think it points to something much bigger than humans can understand.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Can you DEMONSTRATE that these phenomena were caused by god? Because what you're arguing is indistinguishable from greek citizens saying that Lightning came from Zeus - a fundamentally flawed argument - you are arguing, say it with me, a god of the gaps argument. Furthermore, any naturalists would completely obliterate this - any "miracles" defacto have to be caused by unexplainable science as supernatural explanations are implicitly impossible UNTIL somebody can demonstrate that a supernatural element exists. Miracles are not evidence, they are a claim, one that seems to be misunderstood by many atheists and theists.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Throughout history there is little humanity has admitted too big, because god(s).
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm a theist. A really strong theist. I have heard, first-hand, of "miracles" that have happened to people. Do I expect these anecdotes to be persuasive? No, because that's not a miracle isn't simply a situation where the improbably/unlikely happens. Normally, I would say that a miracle is the suspension of the rules of nature at a specific and intentional moment so as to effect a delineated and desired result. But without God's waving and saying, "yeah, I done did that" it is hard to assess any event, no matter how improbable, and decide that it is the working of God, suspending the odds. If there are billions of people in the world who have diseases and conditions, and the odds against anything in particular happening are 100 million to one. then, over time, we SHOULD see an isolated case, the one. Just my thoughts on it.
If we hang our hats on what we can call "miracles" then we are vulnerable to a loss of faith when that miracle is explained rationally.
-->
@n8nrgmi
you should believe him for the signs and wonders that he does. ie, miracles.
What did I say that contradicts? Many of the 5,000 just fed a miraculous meal of five loaves and two fish [that fed 5,000 - not including women and children among them] turned and walked away saying, "This is an hard word. Who can hear it?" They were not strengthened by the obvious miracle, let alone believing in the first place, which is exactly what I said. Without having faith already, and in utter ignorance, they walked away, unimpressed by the miracle, fully fed. So fed, so filled, yet theirs is hunger held in their father's furrowed history. Five thousand fed the bread of life, yet, hungry for their bellies' sake, had no room for eternity.
-->
@n8nrgmi
theists, christians in particular, are always showing things that are impossible, becoming possible.
If you are observing something happening, then by definition, it is not impossible. And if you are observing it regularly, then it is not even remarkable.
I’m sure I’m not the first in this thread to point out that even if something “impossible” happens, that does not tell us anything about the cause. To argue that there must be a link between a miraculous recovery and the prayer that proceeded it is meaningless because theists always pray in tough situations in need of recovery, so of course every time such a recovery occurs the patient was prayed for.
So your argument is apparently that those who are prayed for do better than those who aren’t. But we already know this is false as multiple studies have been done on this. I’ll just leave this here as a start...
-->
@n8nrgmi
What burdens do atheists have regarding "miracles"? Are atheists claiming miracles?!
I think not...
15 days later
-->
@n8nrgmi
optic nerves dont just heal themselves.
Yes they do. You are completely wrong.
-->
@rosends
without God's waving and saying, "yeah, I done did that" it is hard to assess any event, no matter how improbable, and decide that it is the working of God, suspending the odds. If there are billions of people in the world who have diseases and conditions, and the odds against anything in particular happening are 100 million to one. then, over time, we SHOULD see an isolated case, the one. Just my thoughts on it.
Very well stated.
-->
@Mandrakel
feel free to provide evidence
-->
@n8nrgmi
feel free to provide evidence
You didn't provide any evidence of your uneducated, ridiculous claim so such a claim can be dismissed with no evidence.
Anyone with less than half a brain knows that the body heals itself (including a damaged optical nerve of which I have just finished recovering from without any operation). And it takes even less cranial capacity to do a Google search to realize that what you said is 100% wrong. You might want to do your research next time before making absurd untruths.
-->
@Mandrakel
something tells me you didn't go from completely blind to seeing again. if you make the claim that that sort of thing happens to people in normal circumstances, you have to show evidence, because you u made the claim. this isn't about my claims, so you cant just dismiss it, it's about atheist claims. that's the whole point of the thread. atheists have knee jerk reactions and think i'm asking them to prove miracles dont exist. all i'm asking for is for them to show me evidence that things that look supernatural that happen to theists also happen to atheists, too, if that's their claim.
anyone with half a brain would be able to keep all this straight. but you dont find rational thinking from atheists, so i'm not surprised.
-->
@Mandrakel
here is the result from my three second google search...
"With sufficient damage, sight is lost. Damage to the optic nerve is irreversible because the cable of nerve fibers doesn't have the capacity to regenerate, or heal itself, whendamage occurs.Oct 29, 2017"
apparently u r too stupid to do a google search. you look like u a newbie to debating, so i suppose i should expect idiocy.
From the site, Glaucoma Research Foundation:
Is there any way that damage to the optic nerve can be reversed?At the present time, no. Research is still in the initial stages of investigating the mechanisms of regeneration and how they can be stimulated. However, there is a lot of exciting work going on in this area.Optic nerve regeneration is possible in some lower vertebrates. For example, in animals such as fish and frogs, an injured optic nerve regenerates fully, allowing for a complete restoration of vision. In mammals, it has been shown that retinal ganglion cells, when put under conditions found in the peripheral nervous system, can successfully regenerate their axons.Researchers are studying the visual systems of these animals to find out what factors stimulate retinal ganglion cells to regrow their axons and restore the transmission of visual information to the brain.
So not in humans (yet) but it can.
-->
@n8nrgmi
i propose that the woman who regained her sight did so through accidental natural stem cell therapy. A treatment for the commonest cause of blindness could be available within five years, scientists believe, after revealing the first two patients given a revolutionary stem cell therapy have regained enough vision to be able to read.
The natural replacement of damaged cells by stem cells occurs actively and often in adult tissues, especially rapidly dividing cells such as blood cells. An exciting case in Boston, however, posits a kind of natural stem cell therapy provided to a mother by her fetus—long after the fetus is born. Because there is a profound lack of medical intervention, this therapy seems natural enough and is unlikely to be morally suspect.
The lady that prayed to have her blindness cured had 3 children. I say her "miracle" was just a freak of nature.
-->
@n8nrgmi
"With sufficient damage, sight is lost. Damage to the optic nerve is irreversible because the cable of nerve fibers doesn't have the capacity to regenerate, or heal itself, whendamage occurs.Oct 29, 2017"apparently u r too stupid to do a google search. you look like u a newbie to debating, so i suppose i should expect idiocy.
You have not given the source of your "so-called" evidence and nor does the date provide any authenticity so you have therefore maintained a continued refusal and inability to provide viable evidence to back up your erroneous claim which is now quite rightly, well and truly dismissed.
I think you will also find that making personal attacks and using vitriolic, unintelligent language are more the traits of someone who is not very capable of debate let alone trying to deceptively get away with providing bogus evidence.
-->
@Mandrakel
my quote was google's official answer, which is pretty authoritative. polytheist witch also cited information that says serious damage to the retina is irreverssible. my initial article on the miracle stated that as well. so far all i see from you is an inability to use weigh sources and insults "ridiculous" "uneducated" "unintelligent" etc. you're too unsophisticated and partisan to know that the argument is in my favor at this point, and that you need to do your own research to verify what i say is true, or for you to provide contrary evidence.
-->
@n8nrgmi
my quote was google's official answer, which is pretty authoritative.
Google is only a conduit for information, it neither confirms nor validates it. It may, however, quote the source of the information. It is very telling that you have repeatedly refused to state the source of your "evidence" to your claim and even admit to taking a mere three seconds to find the dubious, unqualified nonsense that you did come up with.
polytheist witch also cited information that says serious damage to the retina is irreverssible
Is Polytheist Witch the unquestioned authority on everything that is right on this site? No, I think not. In any case, the onus was on you to provide evidence, which you continue to avoid at all costs. Shoving the responsibility of providing evidence onto someone else is a pretty poor show to say the least.
my initial article on the miracle stated that as well
There are no such things as miracles and there is not one piece of evidence to prove otherwise, so you needn't even bother thinking of doing a three second Google search on that one.
so far all i see from you is an inability to use weigh sources and insults "ridiculous" "uneducated" etc. you're too unsophisticated to know that the argument is in my favor at this point
My words were completely justified and fully backed-up ("apparently u r too stupid to do a google search. you look like u a newbie to debating, so i suppose i should expect idiocy.").........that sort of talk is untrue, crude, vitriolic, personally attacking and, as I understand it, contravenes the rules of this site.
Your debating skills I'm afraid, are way below par and you would need to sharpen your act quite considerably before even thinking of coming anywhere near to arguing on this level.
you're too unsophisticated and partisan to know that the argument is in my favor at this point, and that you need to do your own research to verify what i say is true, or for you to provide contrary evidence.
I need not do any research whatsoever to disprove a spurious claim that has not been proven in the first place by you. And, to provide evidence that is "contrary" to or invalid evidence is a completely absurd suggestion anyway.
-->
@Mandrakel
ok i repeated my three second search, and got google's source of information. a very reputable website.
"Damage to the optic nerve is irreversible because the cable of nerve fibers doesn't have the capacity to regenerate, orheal itself, when damage occurs.Oct 29, 2017"
i'm sure you will just do what the other non thinking atheists have done and just claim if soemone's optic nerve heals then by definiition it wasn't irreversible even though that was the understanding of science at the time.
why do you keep harping on me insulting you, when all you've done is insult me in a low brow way? you've provided nothing to this debate except base skepticism and insults.
-->
@n8nrgmi
ok i repeated my three second search, and got google's source of information. a very reputable website.
Bit too late don't you think? You lost the argument the moment you tried ducking and dodging. You were out in the first round.
In any case, the argument was not about glaucoma, was it?
You may feel insulted but I certainly made no insult whatsoever as already discussed. And you will no doubt continue to feel insulted until you acquire some basic debating skills. I'm politely advising you not insulting because, man, you are way short of the mark.
-->
@Mandrakel
you may not realize this basic point but glaucoma is a disease which damages the optic nerve. so if someone who treats glaucoma says optic nerve damage is irreversible it doesn't matter that the source is from a specific disease.
here is another website from another three second search.
"Unfortunately, once damaged, the optic nerve cannot be repaired since the damage is irreversible.
The optic nerve is composed of nerve fibers that do not possess the ability to regenerate on their own. The nerve fibers, if damaged, cannot heal on their own. Thus, damage to the optic nerve is permanent"
The optic nerve is composed of nerve fibers that do not possess the ability to regenerate on their own. The nerve fibers, if damaged, cannot heal on their own. Thus, damage to the optic nerve is permanent"
you may feel unobligated to google this, but if you did, you would see a whole list of sites that say the same thing. the science on this is settled, even if you dont like it.
-->
@n8nrgmi
you may feel unobligated to google this, but if you did, you would see a whole list of sites that say the same thing. the science on this is settled, even if you dont like it.
And you may feel obliged on your next three second visit to Google that there are just as many websites that say otherwise.
That is irrelevant anyway since, you failed to come up with any viable evidence and only did so after being prompted three times and after dishing out inappropriate, unwarranted abuse. Is that any way to debate? No, it isn't. Do those sort of tactics win debates? No, they didn't.
-->
@Mandrakel
"And you may feel obliged on your next three second visit to Google that there are just as many websites that say otherwise."
my guess, is that you are just pulling this out of nowhere. cause ive googled this several times, and the unanimous consensus is what i have said. there are zero sources that say what you just said here. plus add to the fact that you haven't presented any, and at this point i'm thinking you're just making stuff up. for the purposes of this debate, ive established as true that serious optic nerve damage is irrreversible. expecting a higher standard of proof than what is readily available on the internet from unanimous and credible sources, is an unreasonable expectation.