'Splain this one Atheists...

[mistermack]

When these Jesus freaks publicise "miracle" cures, one possible explanation is nearly always left out.
The possibility that these people are lying.

It seems like people are too polite to even suggest it. But it should be the first and most likely explanation. The proponents always say "why would they lie". But that is the secret weapon of the habitual liar. Ordinary good honest people don't understand liars, and that's why these legends get going.

Real liars don't need motivation to lie. They really don't care. They like a bit of attention, and a big fat lie get them the attention they crave. Hence all the alien stories, and UFO sightings, and crop circles etc.

And this particular "miracle" seem highly suspicious to me.
Why do you call a Chiropractor, if someone is in a coma? Chiropractors are professional liars anyway, so it's dubious right from the start.
And so what, if he touched her neck and prayed? Where's the link, connecting that to her coming out of the coma? If he had touched her tit and farted, would that mean that it was a miracle?

These people were always going to pray, and chiropractors always touch. There is no link. Even if they are not lying.

I'm sixty five, and have never seen a miracle with my own eyes. I have six siblings and none of them have ever seen a miracle. Nor have any kids of our family. Nor has anyone I have ever met in my life.
But I've met an awful lot of liars.

So when someone claims a miracle, it's a pack of lies as far as I'm concerned.
That's my starting point, and unless I see evidence to the contrary, that's how it stays. I'm always open to evidence, but when it comes to "miracles", that evidence needs to be watertight.

[Rum]

I concluded the same thing about quite a few religious 'phenomena' after I left the Born Again lot that brainwashed me in my teens. People would often talk about 'gifts', including prophesy, healing, 'tongues' and the like. I did see someone gabble nonsense once in a bit of a hysterical state, but apparently you also need someone with the gift of 'interpretation' to tell you what they are actually saying (lol!)..and there was nobody there with that particular gift from god. All reports of 'healing' were at least second hand or word of mouth and as to prophesy I never actually heard of one case of it, let alone it coming true!

So somewhere along the line someone was either telling lies or to be extremely charitable, easily convinced and willing to be so.

[Seth]

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

But you don't KNOW it's an irrational statement unless and until you have investigated it. Therefore, prior to investigation, it is irrational to dismiss it because it might be true.

Seth, that is not true. I can judge the rationality of a statement by its premises and conclusions. Where a conclusion does not follow from the premises it is an irrational statement. I demonstrated this above.

That depends entirely on your understanding of the premises. The question is whether a stated premise is true or false.

P1 God can heal any illness
P2 This girl was healed after an appeal to God
C1 God healed this girl.

This is a true logical statement.

P1 Modern medicine can heal certain illnesses
P2 This girl was healed after treatment by modern medicine
C1 Modern medicine healed this girl

This is also a true logical statement.

The problem is, of course, the deeper truth of the first premise, which is to say whether or not God exists and whether or not God can heal any illness and, respectively, whether modern medicine can heal this particular illness and whether or not it did so.

Within the context of the syllogisms however, the conclusions are logical. My point is that you can only take that logical strength so far because in both cases the basic premises may be flawed. It could be that God does not exist and did not heal the girl, and it could also simultaneously be that modern medicine is incapable of healing this illness and did not do so in this case, which leaves us with an indeterminate conclusion as to why this girl recovered. Neither you nor I can say with certainty how this girl was healed, but it could have been either God or modern medicine, or something else entirely.

Therefore, to take the first syllogism and claim that it is irrational is a failure of reasoning because you have no evidence that God did not heal the girl, just as it would be irrational to take the second syllogism and claim that it is rational because you also have no evidence that modern medicine healed the girl. You have a presumptive bias in favor of modern medicine of course because you see that modern medicine heals other illnesses all the time, so you assume without evidence that because it does so in other cases, that it did so, or is more likely to have done so in this case than it is likely that God did it.

But that is a biased and irrational conclusion because you have no evidence upon which you are basing that conclusion, all you have is an inference drawn from your prior experience which conforms to your personal biases against divine intervention because you have never seen divine intervention before.

Thus, the correct rational and logical conclusion to be drawn from the facts (brain-dead girl recovers) is "I don't know how or why it happened" until further evidence is found.

"Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound."

That's not the issue here.

If Premise A and Premise B do not logically result in Conclusion C, the argument is not rational.

And you AGREED that the chiropractor's argument that recovery after prayer can only be divine intervention is, in fact, irrational. It's not rational to believe irrational things. I don't, therefore, believe that the recovery can only be divine intervention. That does not mean there can NEVER be divine intervention. It means that the thing we've been asked to "splain" can be "splained" by saying that the chiropractor is irrational when he concludes irrationally that divine intervention is the only explanation. It isn't. AND -- we have been given no reason to think that it IS divine intervention.

The key word here that you're missing is the word "only." It is irrational for the chiropractor to claim that the "only" possible explanation is divine intervention. It is NOT irrational for him to claim that it COULD BE divine intervention, because it could be. But even assuming arguendo that divine intervention could be a reality his conclusion is still irrational because divine intervention is not the ONLY possible explanation, it is at best one of several possible explanations that may or may not include divine intervention.

Other than that, I make NO CLAIMS, nor do I need to make any. I don't know how she recovered. Neither do you. Neither does the chiropractor. But, HE SAYS -- not me -- HE SAYS what the "only" explanation is. I don't offer ANY explanation. I just don't believe his statement, because it is irrational.

Well, do you know that it is NOT the "only" explanation? If so, how do you know this and what is your evidence supporting this knowledge? Do you see how slippery it becomes to simply dismiss something as "irrational" based only on your own assumptions and personal biases?

No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

But you don't know they are irrational until you discover that they are irrational through the use of evidence.

Untrue. We don't need evidence to know the following is irrational --

All cats have three legs.
All dogs have two ears.
Therefore, all cats have two ears.

That argument is irrational. It doesn't matter what's supported by evidence and what isn't. The argument on its face is irrational. And, it is so EVEN IF all cats do have two ears.

This is true, but it's based on your prior knowledge of the nature of cats and dogs and how you formed the premises. This is not the same sort of syllogism we are discussing here.

What we are considering are two basic premises: First, the premise that modern medicine can heal some illness, and second that God can heal some illness.

We "know" that modern medicine can heal some illness as a matter of prior knowledge, which leads to a bias in favor of modern medicine as the answer.

You do not "know" that God can likewise heal some illness as a matter of prior knowledge, which leads to a bias on your part against divine intervention as the answer.

There are of course other possible causes of healing of illnesses, including spontaneous (unexplained) remission, space aliens, biological processes we don't understand et al.

But the question here is more complex because it has been established (so far as the argument goes alone) that modern medicine has admitted that it cannot explain the healing in this particular case.

So the question to be answered is more complex than your cat/dog syllogism suggests.

P1 Modern medicine cannot explain how this girl was healed
P2 God has the ability to heal this girl
C1 God healed this girl

This is NOT a logical construct because while God may have that ability, there are other mechanisms that might be responsible other than divine intervention.

P1 Modern medicine cannot explain how this girl was healed
P2 God has the ability to heal this girl
C1 The cause of this girl's healing is undetermined

This is a logical statement, and it's what I claim is the ONLY logical answer to the question involved of "what, who or why was this girl healed?"

P1 Modern medicine cannot explain how this girl was healed
P2 God has the ability to heal this girl
C1 God did not heal this girl, something else did

This is NOT a logical statement because there is the possibility that God did in fact heal this girl.

Miracles are contrary to science,

Why are miracles contrary to science? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are contrary to science?

Asked and answered. If you're just going to repeat questions after I answered them, then this is pointless. I told you above why. If you would like to address my answer and tell me why I am wrong in that answer, please do.

No, you ASSERTED something without any scientific, logical or rational proof of the truth of your assertion. You claim that miracles are contrary to science in part by bootstrapping your argument by accepting the definition of "miracle" as being something that is not scientific.

P1 Miracles are contrary to science
P2 Events unexplained by science are miracles
C1 Such events cannot occur

You see, you're just defining away the event without supporting your conclusion.

That's why "miracles" ought not be used, because it's a loaded term that does not accurately describe the nature of the event, it presupposes that nature.

What we have here is an unexplained recovery of a girl who, according to medical science, would not be expected to recover based on medical science's experience and understanding of recovery from such injury.

Being unexplained and yet factually true (her recovery) leads to the inevitable question of how or why she recovered. The bald facts of the story leave us with many possibilities and no firm conclusions, which means that as a matter of rational fact, neither spontaneous recovery, space aliens, unknown biological processes, unknown effects of medications or divine intervention are responsible for her recovery.

Therefore, "I don't know how or why this girl recovered" is the ONLY rational conclusion one can draw from the facts presented to us.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

Usually, and historically, that which science does not understand is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." Science is very often wrong about that.

Again, SCIENCE does not deem them "miraculous" -- praying chiropractors do. So, if anyone is wrong about that, then he is. Right?

Right, science does not do so, so why do Atheists dismiss the possibility of "miraculous" divine intervention without any evidence whatsoever that it's not in fact divine intervention?

and therefore you cannot assert scientific evidentiary requirements for miracles.

Why not?

I explained why not -- in the material you cut out -- immediately before my statement "and therefore." I just explained to you "why not" and then you just ignore the "why not" and ask "why not" again. Go back to my explanation and tell me why it isn't valid.

I did explain myself and tell you exactly why below.

Miracles are supernatural and science deals with the natural.

Are they? What is your scientific evidence that miracles are supernatural?

I explained this before. You ignored, again, the explanation, and reasked the question.

I'm pointing out your recursive logic here. What you are saying is bootstrapping circular logic. You say that miracles are supernatural and that science deals with the natural but you provide no evidence that miracles are supernatural other than a resort to dismissal by definition. You define miracles as "supernatural" without evidence proving that they are supernatural, you merely assume that they are based on your "naturalistic" scientific beliefs. That's not a rational conclusion because you don't know, and cannot prove using your own metric of scientific proof that "miracles" are "supernatural."

By definition, a miracle is contrary to the natural order of things.

Ah, yes, "by definition." And therein lies the enormous cognitive disconnect of science. That which appears to be contrary to the natural order of things is deemed to be "miraculous" or "supernatural." In reality however, it's just as likely that it only appears that way to those who are ignorant of the science that controls such things.

It's a deviation from the laws of nature which science purports to investigate and explain.

Is it a "deviation" or is it merely a not (yet) understood natural phenomenon...kinda like gravity or the earth revolving around the sun?

It's a CLAIMED deviation. You get things backwards, Seth. The people who say "that was a miracle" (like a vision of the Virgin Mary or an amazing medical recovery) THEY claim that the "miracle" was a deviation -- a "divine intervention." THEY claim "god came down from heaven and stopped those bullets." That's them SAYING that god did not intervene, then something else would have happened. The deviation is what changed from what would have happened had god not intervened to what really happened when god did intervene. The people who claim the deviation occurred are the people who say "divine intervention" did it and it was a "miracle."

Ah, but just because they "claim" it to be "miraculous" or "divine intervention" or "supernatural" does that mean that it is? No, it does not. It means, at best, that they do not understand the actual nature of the event and choose to ascribe it to "supernatural" forces because they don't know any better.

You are clearly stating the Atheist's Fallacy again. To reiterate, the Atheist's fallacy is a form of circular reasoning that accepts as a premise the beliefs of theists with respect to the origin and nature of unexplained events they call "miracles" as a part of a logical syllogism that rejects the claim that the event was the result of divine intervention based only on that belief.

P1 Theists believe that God and God's divine intervention are supernatural miracles
P2 Nothing supernatural or miraculous exists or can happen, according to science
C1 God does not exist and/or events claimed as miraculous and divine intervention are neither

This is a logical fallacy for the reasons cited above.

You are presuming that the nature, abilities and intentions of God are created by the beliefs of the worshipers and believers in God. This is clearly false logic because the beliefs of theists do not create the nature, abilities and intentions of God, they are at best only fallible and incomplete understandings of what God (if God exists) is and does.

In inquiring as to the existence, capabilities and intentions of God, to be rational in this inquiry, one must view the beliefs of theists with great skepticism and not accept them as in any way true merely because that is the claim. One must instead examine the questions from a rational basis of logic and science to determine what the true nature of God is, if God exists. Recursively relying upon theistic claims as a foundation for a scientific investigation of the existence, nature, capabilities and intentions of God is pure illogic and unreason.

If it in reality was a natural occurrence which we just don't currently understand, yet, then that would be the exact position of the people who would suggest it's NOT a miracle and NOT a divine intervention. Yes, we don't know why the girl recovered.

But they are believers in divine intervention and the grace of God, so why would they hold that position? You are making the mistake of thinking that just because theists make claims of miracles that this has any real meaning, and just as much you are making the mistake of thinking that just because theists make claims of miracles has NO meaning.

The fact is that you don't know whether miracles occur or not. You don't know whether God exists or not. You don't know whether God can or does divinely intervene in such matters or not. You know absolutely nothing about the claims or the truth of the existence of God. Therefore you cannot draw ANY rational conclusion about the matter at all.

Lastly, if a miracle is just nature doing it's thing according to natural laws, then it's not "divine intervention" or a miracle is it?

Recursion by definition, or in other words, tautology. You presume that "divine intervention" is synonymous with "not according to natural laws" without presenting any actual evidence that divine intervention is not in full accord with natural laws. The problem of course is your ignorance of the totality and truth of "natural laws." Because you don't know everything, you don't know what you don't know, and you don't know that divine intervention is not an entirely natural process.

It's the normal thing to have happen under the same circumstances. Name one actual miracle that is in full accord with the laws of nature and was not an act of a divinity?

I can't, because my understanding of the laws of nature is incomplete, as is yours, as is that of every other human being that is or ever has been. That doesn't make miracles non-natural.

As I already discussed, if you equate God with nature, then we are just talking semantics.

Indeed. Semantics is very important in this discussion.

A God that equals nature or "the universe" is a god that everyone believes in, because we obviously all believe there is a nature and there is a universe. To say, though, "it's a miracle! the laws of physics and physiology operated just as they always do!" is nonsensical, isn't it?

No, not really. It's a demonstration of ignorance of the laws of physics.

You skipped the substance of my arguments and you just reiterated questions I already answered.

The point is that you haven't answered the questions, you have demonstrated that you don't understand them, and therefore I try to clarify what the failures in your reasoning are.

I'm not answering any questions from you until you start providing answers of your own. You skipped my questions to you. Go back, please, and answer the questions I posed to you, and I'll be happy to further explain what I've already explained to you.

You are under the mistaken impression that your explanations are conclusive, logical, rational and scientifically accurate. They aren't, which is why I'm responding to them with critical analysis of the failures in reasoning you demonstrate.

This is not intended in any pejorative sense, it's all part of the Socratic system of dialog. I am attempting to show you the errors in your reasoning through analysis, analogy and reason so that you may reflect on your statements and come to a clearer understanding of the truths involved.

[Seth]

When these Jesus freaks publicise "miracle" cures, one possible explanation is nearly always left out.
The possibility that these people are lying.

It seems like people are too polite to even suggest it. But it should be the first and most likely explanation. The proponents always say "why would they lie". But that is the secret weapon of the habitual liar. Ordinary good honest people don't understand liars, and that's why these legends get going.

Real liars don't need motivation to lie. They really don't care. They like a bit of attention, and a big fat lie get them the attention they crave. Hence all the alien stories, and UFO sightings, and crop circles etc.

And this particular "miracle" seem highly suspicious to me.
Why do you call a Chiropractor, if someone is in a coma? Chiropractors are professional liars anyway, so it's dubious right from the start.
And so what, if he touched her neck and prayed? Where's the link, connecting that to her coming out of the coma? If he had touched her tit and farted, would that mean that it was a miracle?

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I'm sixty five, and have never seen a miracle with my own eyes.

Perhaps, being a radical Atheist and regular critic of God, God has not seen fit to grace you with a miracle. Or maybe he's waiting for just the right time to grant you a miracle which will turn your life around 180 degrees and turn you into the most fervent believer in God ever seen. That does seem to be a habit of his.

I have six siblings and none of them have ever seen a miracle. Nor have any kids of our family. Nor has anyone I have ever met in my life.

Perhaps you should hang out with a better class of godly people. Complaining that you've never experienced a miracle when all you do is insult and revile God and his followers is like complaining about getting the crap beaten out of you at a biker bar for disrespecting Harley Davidson or the club colors.

But I've met an awful lot of liars.

Yeah, me to. Most of them have been either atheists or Atheist. It seems like they have no moral code to guide them and persuade them to act like civilized human beings and they think it's okay to lie, cheat, steal and insult others without provocation at the drop of a hat. Thoroughly unpleasant people by and large, though there are exceptions.

So when someone claims a miracle, it's a pack of lies as far as I'm concerned.

I'm told that disappoints God to no end, since you're going to Hell for eternity if you are unwilling to accept his gift of grace, forgiveness and salvation...or so they tell me.

That's my starting point, and unless I see evidence to the contrary, that's how it stays. I'm always open to evidence, but when it comes to "miracles", that evidence needs to be watertight.

Well, as I understand the dogma, if you're not open to a relationship with God, God isn't going to force you into one. It's up to you, but you may be missing out on some important and good stuff according to Christians.

[mistermack]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

It's a pack of lies.
Can't you read?

[Forty Two]

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

But you don't KNOW it's an irrational statement unless and until you have investigated it. Therefore, prior to investigation, it is irrational to dismiss it because it might be true.

Seth, that is not true. I can judge the rationality of a statement by its premises and conclusions. Where a conclusion does not follow from the premises it is an irrational statement. I demonstrated this above.

That depends entirely on your understanding of the premises. The question is whether a stated premise is true or false.

P1 God can heal any illness
P2 This girl was healed after an appeal to God
C1 God healed this girl.

In the case of the example in the article, even if the premises are true, the conclusion did not follow. Nobody in the article in the OP said "God can heal any illness." That's something you've invented. Further, P1 + P2 does not = THEREFORE "the only explanation is divine intervention." That was what the article in the OP said. So, my "splanation" of the OP article is that his conclusion doesn't follow, and you just demonstrated why.

This is a true logical statement.

P1 Modern medicine can heal certain illnesses
P2 This girl was healed after treatment by modern medicine
C1 Modern medicine healed this girl

This is also a true logical statement.

Viewed charitably, the Conclusion is permissible, but not a necessary conclusion. And, it's not a very strong logical construct, because: (a) P1 says nothing about whether modern medical treatments were able to heal an illness suffered by the girl, and (b) the girl wasn't suffering an "illness" -- she had a traumatic accident.

The problem is, of course, the deeper truth of the first premise, which is to say whether or not God exists and whether or not God can heal any illness and, respectively, whether modern medicine can heal this particular illness and whether or not it did so.

Within the context of the syllogisms however, the conclusions are logical.

permissible. It's also permissible to conclude otherwise, because the conclusion is not a "necessary" conclusion. P1 and P2 could be true, and the Conclusion you offered could be false, because it could be coincidence or natural processes of bodily recovery that were at work, even if the premises were true.

My point is that you can only take that logical strength so far because in both cases the basic premises may be flawed. It could be that God does not exist and did not heal the girl, and it could also simultaneously be that modern medicine is incapable of healing this illness and did not do so in this case, which leaves us with an indeterminate conclusion as to why this girl recovered. Neither you nor I can say with certainty how this girl was healed, but it could have been either God or modern medicine, or something else entirely.

Yes, but you changed the argument offered by the OP. If you were to say in your first example above that C1 is that God is the only explanation for the recovery, then the argument would be invalid, because even assuming the truth of P1 and P2, the C1 would NOT FOLLOW. That's why the OP fails on its face. You can offer other arguments, not offered by the family or the chiropractor in the article, but if you do that, then you're changing the question and moving the goalposts. You asked for someone to "Splain" it. It's been "splained."

I can come up with a logical argument that concludes with God being the only solution, and it would be valid:

P1 -- Only God can heal human beings from injury and illness.
P2 -- the girl recovered from her injury and illness.
C1 -- The only explanation for the girl being healed is divine intervention (God).

Perfectly logical. If P1 and P2 are true, then C1 necessarily true. But, and this is important, that's not the argument made in the OP.

Therefore, to take the first syllogism and claim that it is irrational is a failure of reasoning because you have no evidence that God did not heal the girl, just as it would be irrational to take the second syllogism and claim that it is rational because you also have no evidence that modern medicine healed the girl.

I don't claim your first example is "irrational." It offers an argument with a permissible, but not necessary, conclusion. But, it's a different argument than that offered in the OP.

You have a presumptive bias in favor of modern medicine of course because you see that modern medicine heals other illnesses all the time,

Nope. False. I made no claim about modern medicine, and the possibility is there that modern medicine did nothing to help her recover. Doesn't matter.

so you assume without evidence that because it does so in other cases, that it did so, or is more likely to have done so in this case than it is likely that God did it.

I made no such assumption. I only correctly pointed out that "divine intervention is the only explanation" is irrational, and you agreed. So, I don't believe it.

But that is a biased and irrational conclusion because you have no evidence upon which you are basing that conclusion, all you have is an inference drawn from your prior experience which conforms to your personal biases against divine intervention because you have never seen divine intervention before.

Nope. I made no such conclusion.

Thus, the correct rational and logical conclusion to be drawn from the facts (brain-dead girl recovers) is "I don't know how or why it happened" until further evidence is found.

And, I don't know how or why it happened. I've said that since day one. The chiropractor and family's assertion, however, is irrational on its face. That doesn't mean I know how or why it happened.

"Where evidence is entirely absent, every hypothesis is equally sound."

That's not the issue here.

If Premise A and Premise B do not logically result in Conclusion C, the argument is not rational.

And you AGREED that the chiropractor's argument that recovery after prayer can only be divine intervention is, in fact, irrational. It's not rational to believe irrational things. I don't, therefore, believe that the recovery can only be divine intervention. That does not mean there can NEVER be divine intervention. It means that the thing we've been asked to "splain" can be "splained" by saying that the chiropractor is irrational when he concludes irrationally that divine intervention is the only explanation. It isn't. AND -- we have been given no reason to think that it IS divine intervention.

The key word here that you're missing is the word "only." It is irrational for the chiropractor to claim that the "only" possible explanation is divine intervention. It is NOT irrational for him to claim that it COULD BE divine intervention,[/quote]

That's not what he claimed, though. I only claimed that divine intervention was the only explanation, and that's what you asked people to "Splain."

Logically, of course, given that divine intervention means that a Deity intervenes to change the natural order of things to create a different result than would otherwise occur naturally, then clearly if there is a deity, then it could be divine intervention. That's also true about my commute to work today. Perhaps without the intervention of a deity, I would not have made it down the highway in one piece, or perhaps I wouldn't have awakened this morning, but for the intervention of a deity who, for its own purposes, kept me alive. Sure, Seth, could be. Maybe my car has a problem with the engine that should normally result in it breaking down and running off the road, but the deity intervened to make sure that didn't happen. Yep. It's certainly conceivable.

Other than that, I make NO CLAIMS, nor do I need to make any. I don't know how she recovered. Neither do you. Neither does the chiropractor. But, HE SAYS -- not me -- HE SAYS what the "only" explanation is. I don't offer ANY explanation. I just don't believe his statement, because it is irrational.

Well, do you know that it is NOT the "only" explanation? If so, how do you know this and what is your evidence supporting this knowledge? Do you see how slippery it becomes to simply dismiss something as "irrational" based only on your own assumptions and personal biases?

Seth that is laughable.

I haven't dismissed anything irrational based on my assumptions and personal biases. I dismissed the chiropractor's conclusion because his premises, even if true, do not warrant the conclusion he drew.

I do know that it is not the "only" explanation -- because we can invent any explanation we want. He says God is the only explanation. Someone else may say that aliens are an explanation. or that the moon cured the girl. Or, that my watch did it. Or she just got better through natural bodily processes, or that the doctors did something that unwittingly, or wittingly, cured her. These are all explanations. Whether any of them has any merit, is, of course, another matter, but I can do what the chiropractor did all day long.

No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

But you don't know they are irrational until you discover that they are irrational through the use of evidence.

[/quote]

Seth, you admitted that the chiropractor's statement was irrational. It's irrational because it's premises do not warrant the conclusion he drew. It doesn't require evidence. You are going in circles, contradicting yourself, and repeating already soundly refuted statements. A logical argument doesn't necessarily need to be refuted by evidence to be shown to be irrational. When the premises do not lead to the conclusion drawn, then it's irrational. I can assume the premises to true. I'm not trying to prove them false in that case. Assuming their truth, the conclusion does not logically follow.

Untrue. We don't need evidence to know the following is irrational --

All cats have three legs.
All dogs have two ears.
Therefore, all cats have two ears.

That argument is irrational. It doesn't matter what's supported by evidence and what isn't. The argument on its face is irrational. And, it is so EVEN IF all cats do have two ears.

This is true, but it's based on your prior knowledge of the nature of cats and dogs and how you formed the premises. This is not the same sort of syllogism we are discussing here.

Seth, you are out of your mind here. NO...... it is NOT based on my prior knowledge of cats and dogs. The premises are assumed true, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.

It doesn't matter if all cats have three legs or all dogs have two ears. We assume those premises to be true, and then look at the Conclusion "all cats have two ears." Does it logically follow from the premises that all cats have two ears? No. It doesn't. The argument is irrational, and it doesn't matter if the conclusion is true. It's irrational irrespective of its actual real world truth. The fact that cats do have two ears doesn't make the argument rational or logical.

What we are considering are two basic premises: First, the premise that modern medicine can heal some illness, and second that God can heal some illness.

Those premises were not in the OP.

We can certainly consider them, but it would not be "Splaining" the OP. Nor would a discussion of those premises impact or refute my "Splaination" of the OP.

We "know" that modern medicine can heal some illness as a matter of prior knowledge,

Not in Sethworld. In Sethworld, you can't know that because it could be that divine intervention is the only source of healing and that what everyone thinks is modern medicine at work is really the divinity. You have no evidence to the contrary. You can't know god doesn't heal all illnesses.

which leads to a bias in favor of modern medicine as the answer.

Nobody offered modern medicine as the only explanation in the OP. I didn't offer it as the only explanation.

You do not "know" that God can likewise heal some illness as a matter of prior knowledge, which leads to a bias on your part against divine intervention as the answer.

In Sethworld, you don't know that I don't know that. For all you know, I know for a fact that God heals all illnesses. Maybe I just don't like God, and I am giving him a bad name by not giving him credit for what I know to be his work.

There are of course other possible causes of healing of illnesses, including spontaneous (unexplained) remission, space aliens, biological processes we don't understand et al.

This is awesome -- just above, you told me that I couldn't say that divine intervention wasn't the ONLY explanation. Now you are saying that "of course" there are other possibilities.

So, since you say "of course" there are other possibilities, then you are ipso facto agreeing that the chiropractor is dead wrong when he says that "divine intervention is the only explanation." Right? He's wrong about that isn't he? Or, are you going to reverse your position on "of course there are other possible causes..."

Tell me flat out, Seth -- is the chiropractor wrong when he says that divine intervention is the only explanation? Is he or isn't he wrong about that?

If you say that you "don't know" if he's wrong about that -- then how do you square that with your statement above that "of course there are other possible causes?"

But the question here is more complex because it has been established (so far as the argument goes alone) that modern medicine has admitted that it cannot explain the healing in this particular case.

Yes, we've already been through this. The doctors (not "modern medicine" -- modern medicine didn't say anything) said they didn't know how it happened and they thought it was almost impossible if not impossible for her to recover. They don't know.

[Forty Two]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I don't know.

Perhaps, being a radical Atheist and regular critic of God, God has not seen fit to grace you with a miracle. Or maybe he's waiting for just the right time to grant you a miracle which will turn your life around 180 degrees and turn you into the most fervent believer in God ever seen. That does seem to be a habit of his.

Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence that "That does seem to be a habit of his?"

Perhaps you should hang out with a better class of godly people. Complaining that you've never experienced a miracle when all you do is insult and revile God and his followers is like complaining about getting the crap beaten out of you at a biker bar for disrespecting Harley Davidson or the club colors.

Doesn't that depend on the god you believe in? Some people say that their god loves all mankind, even those that reject him and speak against him. So, whatever god you're talking about may be one who does miracles as much for sinners as for saints. It's amazing that you call for "critically robust scientific evidence" to demonstrate various things, but then you make direct statements about what "God" wants and does. Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence for your claims?

Yeah, me to. Most of them have been either atheists or Atheist.

Most of the ones I've seen are theists and nontheist Tolerists TM. Particularly those who admit they aren't even honest about the beliefs they express....

It seems like they have no moral code to guide them and persuade them to act like civilized human beings and they think it's okay to lie, cheat, steal and insult others without provocation at the drop of a hat. Thoroughly unpleasant people by and large, though there are exceptions.

In my view, people are largely the same, but religion does give folks a license to hurt people and call it good. Some religions even say it's o.k. to lie and steal from unbelievers, or even kill them. That's part of what supposed Gods bring to the table.

I'm told

Told by whom? Someone with critically robust evidence that God exists and that the person who told you knows what God wants?

that disappoints God to no end,

Did anyone present you with critically robust evidence that God said he was disappointed? Or, that the person who told you heard God say it or communicate it in some way?

since you're going to Hell for eternity if you are unwilling to accept his gift of grace, forgiveness and salvation...or so they tell me.

Who told you and what critically robust evidence do they have?

Well, as I understand the dogma,

Which religion's dogma? How did you get this understanding? Do you have any critically robust evidence for your understanding?

if you're not open to a relationship with God, God isn't going to force you into one.

How do you know this? Do you have critically robust evidence?

It's up to you, but you may be missing out on some important and good stuff according to Christians.

Which Christians? A particular denomination or person? All Christians? What's the critically robust evidence of these Christians to support what they think we're missing?

[Seth]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I don't know.

Me neither.

Perhaps, being a radical Atheist and regular critic of God, God has not seen fit to grace you with a miracle. Or maybe he's waiting for just the right time to grant you a miracle which will turn your life around 180 degrees and turn you into the most fervent believer in God ever seen. That does seem to be a habit of his.

Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence that "That does seem to be a habit of his?"

No, just some personal anecdotal experiences, which is why I use the word "seem." Appearances can be deceiving.

Perhaps you should hang out with a better class of godly people. Complaining that you've never experienced a miracle when all you do is insult and revile God and his followers is like complaining about getting the crap beaten out of you at a biker bar for disrespecting Harley Davidson or the club colors.

Doesn't that depend on the god you believe in?

Not really. I think it depends on the God that exists. What you believe is utterly irrelevant with respect to what a, or the God might do or not do. Again, belief does not create the deity, the deity is (or may be) the deity and one's belief may be true, false or incomplete.

Some people say that their god loves all mankind, even those that reject him and speak against him. So, whatever god you're talking about may be one who does miracles as much for sinners as for saints. It's amazing that you call for "critically robust scientific evidence" to demonstrate various things, but then you make direct statements about what "God" wants and does. Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence for your claims?

It was an analogy, not a statement of eternal truth. I would hypothesize that spending your life insulting and reviling a god might not lead to the optimal consequences, but it is just speculation...and sarcastic analogy.

Yeah, me to. Most of them have been either atheists or Atheist.

Most of the ones I've seen are theists and nontheist Tolerists TM. Particularly those who admit they aren't even honest about the beliefs they express....

You might be confusing debatorial position-taking and belief. They are two entirely different things. For further information, see Aristotle.

It seems like they have no moral code to guide them and persuade them to act like civilized human beings and they think it's okay to lie, cheat, steal and insult others without provocation at the drop of a hat. Thoroughly unpleasant people by and large, though there are exceptions.

In my view, people are largely the same, but religion does give folks a license to hurt people and call it good. Some religions even say it's o.k. to lie and steal from unbelievers, or even kill them. That's part of what supposed Gods bring to the table.

Some of them I suppose. But certainly not all of them, at least as described by their followers. Who knows what they actually want people to do? Not me.

I'm told

Told by whom? Someone with critically robust evidence that God exists and that the person who told you knows what God wants?

Catholics and other Christians with whom I am acquainted and occasionally spend an evening debating such things. I make no representation as to the absolute accuracy of their claims, I'm merely relating indirectly what they tell me they believe. Feel free to interview Christians of your own acquaintance for further information.

that disappoints God to no end,

Did anyone present you with critically robust evidence that God said he was disappointed? Or, that the person who told you heard God say it or communicate it in some way?

No, and have not claimed that I do.

since you're going to Hell for eternity if you are unwilling to accept his gift of grace, forgiveness and salvation...or so they tell me.

Who told you and what critically robust evidence do they have?

Friends and acquaintances of a Christian religious belief, and zero evidence, nothing more than an expression of their beliefs, which I present for your information at face value. For further information, consult God.

Well, as I understand the dogma,

Which religion's dogma? How did you get this understanding? Do you have any critically robust evidence for your understanding?

Christianity. From friends. No.

if you're not open to a relationship with God, God isn't going to force you into one.

How do you know this? Do you have critically robust evidence?

I don't "know" it in the sense of giving it credence, I know it only because that is how it's been explained to me by those of that particular faith. Whether it is true or not is not important to me, though it seems important to them, and might be important to others. I make no claim of truth about the claims, I merely present them as given to me.

It's up to you, but you may be missing out on some important and good stuff according to Christians.

Which Christians? A particular denomination or person? All Christians? What's the critically robust evidence of these Christians to support what they think we're missing?

The ones I speak with. I don't know. I don't know.

[Seth]

It is, because we've already agreed that it is not a rational statement. There is every reason not to believe an irrational statement. It would be irrational to believe an irrational statement -- by definition.

But you don't KNOW it's an irrational statement unless and until you have investigated it. Therefore, prior to investigation, it is irrational to dismiss it because it might be true.

Seth, that is not true. I can judge the rationality of a statement by its premises and conclusions. Where a conclusion does not follow from the premises it is an irrational statement. I demonstrated this above.

That depends entirely on your understanding of the premises. The question is whether a stated premise is true or false.

P1 God can heal any illness
P2 This girl was healed after an appeal to God
C1 God healed this girl.

In the case of the example in the article, even if the premises are true, the conclusion did not follow. Nobody in the article in the OP said "God can heal any illness." That's something you've invented. Further, P1 + P2 does not = THEREFORE "the only explanation is divine intervention." That was what the article in the OP said. So, my "splanation" of the OP article is that his conclusion doesn't follow, and you just demonstrated why.

It wasn't a syllogism representing the claim in the article, it was an example of logical reasoning.

This is a true logical statement.

P1 Modern medicine can heal certain illnesses
P2 This girl was healed after treatment by modern medicine
C1 Modern medicine healed this girl

This is also a true logical statement.

Viewed charitably, the Conclusion is permissible, but not a necessary conclusion.

Viewed logically it is true, so far as it goes, and no, it is not a necessary conclusion.

And, it's not a very strong logical construct, because: (a) P1 says nothing about whether modern medical treatments were able to heal an illness suffered by the girl, and (b) the girl wasn't suffering an "illness" -- she had a traumatic accident.

"Illness" is merely a shorthand term for her condition, which while triggered by trauma is still an illness, since "illness" means "an unhealthy condition of body or mind." You're quibbling.

The problem is, of course, the deeper truth of the first premise, which is to say whether or not God exists and whether or not God can heal any illness and, respectively, whether modern medicine can heal this particular illness and whether or not it did so.

Within the context of the syllogisms however, the conclusions are logical.

permissible. It's also permissible to conclude otherwise, because the conclusion is not a "necessary" conclusion. P1 and P2 could be true, and the Conclusion you offered could be false, because it could be coincidence or natural processes of bodily recovery that were at work, even if the premises were true.

"Permissible", "logical", tomatoe, tomahtoe. You're quite right that the conclusion can be factually false and logically true, and that's the point.

My point is that you can only take that logical strength so far because in both cases the basic premises may be flawed. It could be that God does not exist and did not heal the girl, and it could also simultaneously be that modern medicine is incapable of healing this illness and did not do so in this case, which leaves us with an indeterminate conclusion as to why this girl recovered. Neither you nor I can say with certainty how this girl was healed, but it could have been either God or modern medicine, or something else entirely.

Yes, but you changed the argument offered by the OP. If you were to say in your first example above that C1 is that God is the only explanation for the recovery, then the argument would be invalid, because even assuming the truth of P1 and P2, the C1 would NOT FOLLOW. That's why the OP fails on its face. You can offer other arguments, not offered by the family or the chiropractor in the article, but if you do that, then you're changing the question and moving the goalposts. You asked for someone to "Splain" it. It's been "splained."

No it hasn't. Nobody's offered up any critically robust scientific evidence of the actual mechanism and process by which the girl recovered from her illness that is any more credible or robust than the assertion that God perpetrated a miracle. You may have explained why divine intervention cannot be the "only" answer, but that's not the question asked by the OP, which is "if it's not divine intervention, then what is it?"

I can come up with a logical argument that concludes with God being the only solution, and it would be valid:

P1 -- Only God can heal human beings from injury and illness.
P2 -- the girl recovered from her injury and illness.
C1 -- The only explanation for the girl being healed is divine intervention (God).

Perfectly logical. If P1 and P2 are true, then C1 necessarily true. But, and this is important, that's not the argument made in the OP.

Well, to be critical, the proper syllogism is:

P1 Only God can heal this girl from this illness (injury if you like).
P2 This girl recovered from this illness.
C1 God healed this girl.

This is a true logical syllogism, and is the proper one (if you insist) in this case because along with the claim that only divine intervention could have healed the girl, the OP also states that medical science is baffled by the girl's recover and can provide no medical explanation for her recovery, which at least suggests that divine intervention is the cause, even if it is not the "only" cause of her recovery.

You're trying to focus on the word "only" to the exclusion of the actual question asked by the OP, which is for an Atheist explain how this girl recovered if it is claimed that it was NOT divine intervention.

You have a presumptive bias in favor of modern medicine of course because you see that modern medicine heals other illnesses all the time,

Nope. False. I made no claim about modern medicine, and the possibility is there that modern medicine did nothing to help her recover. Doesn't matter.

You don't have to make a claim to have a bias. The bias can be inferred from your arguments.

so you assume without evidence that because it does so in other cases, that it did so, or is more likely to have done so in this case than it is likely that God did it.

I made no such assumption. I only correctly pointed out that "divine intervention is the only explanation" is irrational, and you agreed. So, I don't believe it.

Yes, but that's not the question asked in the OP, which you are trying to avoid answering. I didn't ask if the "only" possible explanation for her recovery was divine intervention, I asked, if you believe it was NOT divine intervention, what is the actual explanation of her recovery, supported and proven using the metrics that science and medicine require as proof.

Thus, the correct rational and logical conclusion to be drawn from the facts (brain-dead girl recovers) is "I don't know how or why it happened" until further evidence is found.

And, I don't know how or why it happened. I've said that since day one. The chiropractor and family's assertion, however, is irrational on its face. That doesn't mean I know how or why it happened.

Well, there you go. What's so hard about admitting that? I don't know either. But not knowing does not support either a medical/scientific conclusion or a divine one, it's just "I don't know" and the conclusion is indeterminate, which is my entire point in posting the OP to begin with.

That's not what he claimed, though. I only claimed that divine intervention was the only explanation, and that's what you asked people to "Splain."

Wrong. You misunderstand the question.

Logically, of course, given that divine intervention means that a Deity intervenes to change the natural order of things to create a different result than would otherwise occur naturally, then clearly if there is a deity, then it could be divine intervention.

You falsely assume that divine intervention creates a "change in the natural order of things" without any evidence that this is the case. Once again, you are falling prey to the Atheist's Fallacy in that you assume a priori that divine intervention is somehow outside of the natural order of things. You do so because of your "pro-naturalistic" bias, which is to say your anti-theistic bias that holds that because theists claim that divine intervention is "supernatural" that this actually the case. You miss the fact that divine intervention does not have to be "supernatural" just because some people choose to believe it is. In point of fact, divine intervention could be, and in my view (if it happens) is perfectly and completely natural and within the realm of nature because, well, if God exists, God is part of nature by definition, and therefore anything God might do, while it might APPEAR to be "supernatural" can be nothing other than completely natural and within the natural laws of the universe. It's just that we puny humans have an imperfect knowledge and understanding of the universe and therefore view such phenomena as being "supernatural" merely because we don't understand them.

But yes, it could be divine intervention. Or not. I don't know.

That's also true about my commute to work today. Perhaps without the intervention of a deity, I would not have made it down the highway in one piece, or perhaps I wouldn't have awakened this morning, but for the intervention of a deity who, for its own purposes, kept me alive.

A good many religious people believe exactly that. Are they wrong? I don't know.

Sure, Seth, could be. Maybe my car has a problem with the engine that should normally result in it breaking down and running off the road, but the deity intervened to make sure that didn't happen. Yep. It's certainly conceivable.

And therefore it cannot be dismissed without countervailing evidence of the sort you require for proof of other claims.

Other than that, I make NO CLAIMS, nor do I need to make any. I don't know how she recovered. Neither do you. Neither does the chiropractor. But, HE SAYS -- not me -- HE SAYS what the "only" explanation is. I don't offer ANY explanation. I just don't believe his statement, because it is irrational.

Well, do you know that it is NOT the "only" explanation? If so, how do you know this and what is your evidence supporting this knowledge? Do you see how slippery it becomes to simply dismiss something as "irrational" based only on your own assumptions and personal biases?

Seth that is laughable.

I haven't dismissed anything irrational based on my assumptions and personal biases. I dismissed the chiropractor's conclusion because his premises, even if true, do not warrant the conclusion he drew.

Are you sure? Maybe he knows something you don't.

I do know that it is not the "only" explanation -- because we can invent any explanation we want. He says God is the only explanation. Someone else may say that aliens are an explanation. or that the moon cured the girl. Or, that my watch did it. Or she just got better through natural bodily processes, or that the doctors did something that unwittingly, or wittingly, cured her. These are all explanations. Whether any of them has any merit, is, of course, another matter, but I can do what the chiropractor did all day long.

For you to draw such a conclusion you would have to have perfect knowledge of the universe. Do you? Can you even prove that logic is the only, or proper metric for judging a claim? You presume that if a claim is illogical that it must be false, but that is based on a bias towards logic that you have. What if the universe is not logical at all? What if irrational belief is what reveals the truth, rather than logic?

No. Irrational hypotheses are less sound than rational ones.

But you don't know they are irrational until you discover that they are irrational through the use of evidence.

[/quote]

Seth, you admitted that the chiropractor's statement was irrational. It's irrational because it's premises do not warrant the conclusion he drew. It doesn't require evidence.

Only if you presume that logic is inherently correct or superior to illogic. We both happen to do so, but ontologically can we even support the argument that logic is inherently correct?

You are going in circles, contradicting yourself, and repeating already soundly refuted statements. A logical argument doesn't necessarily need to be refuted by evidence to be shown to be irrational. When the premises do not lead to the conclusion drawn, then it's irrational. I can assume the premises to true. I'm not trying to prove them false in that case. Assuming their truth, the conclusion does not logically follow.

You are correct, insofar as my understanding of the universe comports with reality. I'm indeed dancing on the head of a pin for a moment to point out the ontological difficulty with saying that we "know" anything at all, ever, much less can we draw rational conclusions about things we don't understand.

So, I'll come clean and admit that the claim that "only" divine intervention can be the cause of this recovery is not a rational claim. But as I have said before, that's not the question posed by the OP at all. The question posed is, if you disbelieve that divine intervention is the cause, then what is the cause?

What we are considering are two basic premises: First, the premise that modern medicine can heal some illness, and second that God can heal some illness.

Those premises were not in the OP.

Yes, they were.

We can certainly consider them, but it would not be "Splaining" the OP. Nor would a discussion of those premises impact or refute my "Splaination" of the OP.

You want to limit the examination of the events cited to explaining whether or not the chiropractor's claim is true or untrue, but that's not the intent of the OP, which was a challenge to refute divine intervention as the cause by providing critically robust scientific/medical evidence of what the actual cause of the girl's recovery was.

There are of course other possible causes of healing of illnesses, including spontaneous (unexplained) remission, space aliens, biological processes we don't understand et al.

This is awesome -- just above, you told me that I couldn't say that divine intervention wasn't the ONLY explanation. Now you are saying that "of course" there are other possibilities.

Indeed. That's because the deeper we get into the ontological issues, the less certain anything becomes.

So, since you say "of course" there are other possibilities, then you are ipso facto agreeing that the chiropractor is dead wrong when he says that "divine intervention is the only explanation." Right? He's wrong about that isn't he? Or, are you going to reverse your position on "of course there are other possible causes..."

No, you still misunderstand, this is not about what the chiropractor did or did not say, it's about your response to his claim and whether you have enough rational, critically robust scientific evidence to the standards that science calls for to justify your conclusions about the truth or falsity of his claims. It's not about whether he has such evidence or indeed whether his claims are rational or not, it's about your logical processes and the robustness of your logic and conclusions.

In other words, it's about uncertainty. And there is uncertainty in everything, even logical syllogisms, because ontologically speaking, we cannot prove that logic is "true" or that our understanding of anything is actual "knowledge" rather than "belief."

There may be other causes, there may not be other causes. God may have dunnit, or God may not have dunnit. Her recovery could be the result of biological processes or it could be the result of divine intervention. I don't know. You don't know. The chiropractor doesn't know (despite his claim that he does). Medical science doesn't know.

In other words, the entire OP resolves to one incredibly simple and true answer: We don't know how or why she recovered.

The point of the OP is to point out the irrationality and hypocrisy of Atheists who belittle and dismiss a claim of divine intervention while purporting (by implication) to be intellectually superior to those who believe in divine intervention. I'm posing an impossible challenge to Atheists who scoff at the notion of divine intervention by challenging them to provide the answer as to why and how this girl recovered to the standards they themselves set and insist that all theistic claims meet.

I do this knowing full well that they cannot do so, but they do try, and fail, to weasel around the fact that their own religious beliefs are no better (and in some cases worse) than those of the people they revile and disrespect.

Tell me flat out, Seth -- is the chiropractor wrong when he says that divine intervention is the only explanation? Is he or isn't he wrong about that?

I don't know.

If you say that you "don't know" if he's wrong about that -- then how do you square that with your statement above that "of course there are other possible causes?"

I don't. I admit that I don't know and leave it at that, pending other evidence as to the nature of existence and the laws of the universe. That's the whole point. I don't presume to know and therefore am not qualified to judge, so I don't. I admit my ignorance and I'm satisfied to allow others to believe what they believe and say what they choose to say so long as their actions remain peaceable. I have no need to be "right" in this, or any other debate. I'm content with the journey and the destination as they are.

[Forty Two]

No it hasn't. Nobody's offered up any critically robust scientific evidence of the actual mechanism and process by which the girl recovered from her illness that is any more credible or robust than the assertion that God perpetrated a miracle. You may have explained why divine intervention cannot be the "only" answer, but that's not the question asked by the OP, which is "if it's not divine intervention, then what is it?"

You said to "Splain" the events recounted in the article. First, we assume arguendo they are are true, but we have no critically robust evidence to say they are true. We're just taking the writer at his word. There may be defects in narration, memory, veracity, etc.

That being said, the Splanation offered is "I don't know the mechanism or process by which the girl recovered, but what is offered up by the chiropractor and the family in the article is irrational."

You've specified a new question, not asked in the OP, which is "if it's not divine intervention, then what is it?" You've already answered that above. It could be natural processes of the human body, which we do not understand.

Well, to be critical, the proper syllogism is:

P1 Only God can heal this girl from this illness (injury if you like).
P2 This girl recovered from this illness.
C1 God healed this girl.

This is a true logical syllogism,

It's logical. But, you mix up concepts here. Logical doesn't mean true. The Conclusion may or may not be "true" -- it is true IF, and only IF, P1 and P2 are true, which we don't know.

It's as "true" as:

P1 - All dogs are black.
P2 - Spot is a dog.
C1 - Spot is black.

and is the proper one (if you insist) in this case because along with the claim that only divine intervention could have healed the girl, the OP also states that medical science is baffled by the girl's recover

It says the doctors are baffled. You've already admitted that there are many things in the universe that we don't know at one time, but later we find perfectly natural explanations for.

and can provide no medical explanation for her recovery, which at least suggests that divine intervention is the cause, even if it is not the "only" cause of her recovery.

It doesn't suggest divine intervention, and you've previously admitted that it doesn't. Remember when you talked of Arthur C. Clarke and "every sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?" And, you proceeded to say that sufficiently advanced technology isn't magic, it's just science that we don't yet understand? The same applies here. Calling it divine intervention is a caveman thinking airplanes are divine. It's the god of the gaps. We can't explain it, therefore god.

That is not logical.

You're trying to focus on the word "only" to the exclusion of the actual question asked by the OP, which is for an Atheist explain how this girl recovered if it is claimed that it was NOT divine intervention.

Well, that wasn't explicitly posed, but fair enough.

I don't know, but the fact that the girl recovered suggests that there is a recovery process at work that we do not, yet, understand.

You have a presumptive bias in favor of modern medicine of course because you see that modern medicine heals other illnesses all the time,

Nope. False. I made no claim about modern medicine, and the possibility is there that modern medicine did nothing to help her recover. Doesn't matter.

You don't have to make a claim to have a bias. The bias can be inferred from your arguments.[/quote]

You've inferred wrongly.

so you assume without evidence that because it does so in other cases, that it did so, or is more likely to have done so in this case than it is likely that God did it.

I made no such assumption. I only correctly pointed out that "divine intervention is the only explanation" is irrational, and you agreed. So, I don't believe it.

Yes, but that's not the question asked in the OP, which you are trying to avoid answering. I didn't ask if the "only" possible explanation for her recovery was divine intervention, I asked, if you believe it was NOT divine intervention, what is the actual explanation of her recovery, supported and proven using the metrics that science and medicine require as proof.[/quote]

I haven't avoided any questions posed.

You never asked int he OP if we believed it was not divine intervention that we had to provide the actual explanation. I've already said my position. If the doctors don't know, and they were there trying to help her, and they are experts, then I certainly don't know. However, like you said before, there are plenty of things that science doesn't know at time X but does know at a later time. However, the fact that the doctors didn't think she would survive and don't know why she achieved this amazing recovery doesn't mean it was divine intervention.

]

Thus, the correct rational and logical conclusion to be drawn from the facts (brain-dead girl recovers) is "I don't know how or why it happened" until further evidence is found.

And, I don't know how or why it happened. I've said that since day one. The chiropractor and family's assertion, however, is irrational on its face. That doesn't mean I know how or why it happened.

Well, there you go. What's so hard about admitting that?[/quote] Nothing, and I've said it since day one of this conversation. What's so hard about actually reading what I say instead of pretending that I'm someone else you've talked to in another discussion. You do this to people all the time. You pretend that those you're talking to are these (loosely defined) "Atheists" you're carping on about, when the person you're talking to hasn't committed the horrible sins you accuse "Atheists" of.

I don't know either. But not knowing does not support either a medical/scientific conclusion or a divine one, it's just "I don't know" and the conclusion is indeterminate, which is my entire point in posting the OP to begin with.

Since I've never said anything other than I don't know, and that is the rational, conclusion, then we are in agreement that the chiropractor is wrong and irrational to draw his conclusion. Right? That is, unless he can present critically robust scientific evidence of his assertion, yes?

That's not what he claimed, though. I only claimed that divine intervention was the only explanation, and that's what you asked people to "Splain."

Wrong. You misunderstand the question.

Wrong. You posed a question that, apparently, was different that that which you intended. Go look at your OP again. If you can show me where you asked people to provide the actually explanation for what happened when the doctors themselves were unable to do so.....

Logically, of course, given that divine intervention means that a Deity intervenes to change the natural order of things to create a different result than would otherwise occur naturally, then clearly if there is a deity, then it could be divine intervention.

You falsely assume that divine intervention creates a "change in the natural order of things" without any evidence that this is the case.

Look, Seth, you keep going on as if words don't have meanings. "Intervention." If the divinity does something, but it doesn't change anything, then how the heck is it an intervention? It's like me "intervening" on the trajectory of a baseball with my bat, but when I swing my bat, it doesn't do anything to modify the trajectory of the ball, which winds up exactly where it otherwise would. How is that an "intervention?"

Without a change in the way things would have happened without the divinity, it's by definition not an intervention.

[Forty Two]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I don't know.

Me neither.

Well, you know, any sufficiently advanced medical technology is indistinguishable from magic..... (and what that quote from A.C.C. means is that while it is "indistinguishable" from magic, it isn't magic.

Perhaps, being a radical Atheist and regular critic of God, God has not seen fit to grace you with a miracle. Or maybe he's waiting for just the right time to grant you a miracle which will turn your life around 180 degrees and turn you into the most fervent believer in God ever seen. That does seem to be a habit of his.

Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence that "That does seem to be a habit of his?"

No, just some personal anecdotal experiences, which is why I use the word "seem." Appearances can be deceiving. [/quote]

Well, without critically robust scientific evidence, then what weight should we give your assertion about what you think it "seems" like God does?

Perhaps you should hang out with a better class of godly people. Complaining that you've never experienced a miracle when all you do is insult and revile God and his followers is like complaining about getting the crap beaten out of you at a biker bar for disrespecting Harley Davidson or the club colors.

Doesn't that depend on the god you believe in?

Not really. I think it depends on the God that exists. What you believe is utterly irrelevant with respect to what a, or the God might do or not do. Again, belief does not create the deity, the deity is (or may be) the deity and one's belief may be true, false or incomplete.[/quote]

Well, that depends. There is power in "belief" even if what is believed in does not exist or is not real.

However, it would also depend on the gods, if any, that exist, sure. And, I've heard folks talk about gods having many different habits and personalities. I've not seen any reason to believe your anecdotal version any more than theirs, so why would I be concerned about insulting the "god who doesn't do miracles for those who insult him" or the one who will "burn people in hell?" Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence for your assertions about this god?

Some people say that their god loves all mankind, even those that reject him and speak against him. So, whatever god you're talking about may be one who does miracles as much for sinners as for saints. It's amazing that you call for "critically robust scientific evidence" to demonstrate various things, but then you make direct statements about what "God" wants and does. Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence for your claims?

It was an analogy, not a statement of eternal truth. I would hypothesize that spending your life insulting and reviling a god might not lead to the optimal consequences, but it is just speculation...and sarcastic analogy.

So, just made up nothing, which is of no import.

Yeah, me to. Most of them have been either atheists or Atheist.

Most of the ones I've seen are theists and nontheist Tolerists TM. Particularly those who admit they aren't even honest about the beliefs they express....

You might be confusing debatorial position-taking and belief. They are two entirely different things. For further information, see Aristotle.[/quote]

No, I'm not confusing it at all. Theists I've encountered have been quite mendacious. Two-faced hypocrites and liars. And, your argumentation, as a nontheist Tolerist, is often pettifoggery and double-talk. You "seem" to argue from a position of dishonesty and vitriol. That's how you come across, to someone who has tried seriously to work through the arguments with you, given you the courtesy of straight answers and refrained from namecalling.

It seems like they have no moral code to guide them and persuade them to act like civilized human beings and they think it's okay to lie, cheat, steal and insult others without provocation at the drop of a hat. Thoroughly unpleasant people by and large, though there are exceptions.

In my view, people are largely the same, but religion does give folks a license to hurt people and call it good. Some religions even say it's o.k. to lie and steal from unbelievers, or even kill them. That's part of what supposed Gods bring to the table.

Some of them I suppose. But certainly not all of them, at least as described by their followers. Who knows what they actually want people to do? Not me.[/quote]

Funny how when you talk of theists, there is all sorts of benefit of the doubt, you point out "not all of them" and "who knows." For atheists though, every last one of them is uncivilized, liars, cheats and thieves.

A theist liar and cheat tends to be worse than an atheist liar and cheat. The theist lies and cheats while pretending to follow a deity/religion that helps them behave morally, yet they violate their own precepts. At least an atheist liar and a cheat isn't also a blatant hypocrite in that way.

[Seth]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I don't know.

Me neither.

Well, you know, any sufficiently advanced medical technology is indistinguishable from magic..... (and what that quote from A.C.C. means is that while it is "indistinguishable" from magic, it isn't magic.

Exactly! It's about knowledge and perception, and the key here is that our lack of knowledge and our biased perceptions have no effect on the object of knowledge...unless you're a Schroedingerist.

Perhaps, being a radical Atheist and regular critic of God, God has not seen fit to grace you with a miracle. Or maybe he's waiting for just the right time to grant you a miracle which will turn your life around 180 degrees and turn you into the most fervent believer in God ever seen. That does seem to be a habit of his.

Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence that "That does seem to be a habit of his?"

No, just some personal anecdotal experiences, which is why I use the word "seem." Appearances can be deceiving. [/quote]

Well, without critically robust scientific evidence, then what weight should we give your assertion about what you think it "seems" like God does?

Whatever weight you feel is appropriate of course. That's the thing, you see, you get to have and hold your beliefs and perceptions and understandings and it's not up to me to criticize them merely because I might disagree with you. We can always debate such things, but a difference of opinion, and that's what all beliefs amount to, is no reason to resort to personal insults or derision. I want to note right here and now that I mean that as a general statement of Tolerist™ dogma and orthodoxy and not any sort of intimation that you, personally, are guilty of such bad behavior. But many here, and in all similar fora, are guilty, and such actions are not "peaceable" and therefore Tolerists™ are free to respond to such non-peaceable actions as necessary and as they feel called to do. Which is why I posted the OP. I knew full well that insult and derision would be the result because Atheists are highly predictable in that way, which would give me entre to debate the subject for rather a long time, as is usually the case with my threads...most of which seem to be some of the longest running threads on this somewhat moribund Atheist forum.

Perhaps you should hang out with a better class of godly people. Complaining that you've never experienced a miracle when all you do is insult and revile God and his followers is like complaining about getting the crap beaten out of you at a biker bar for disrespecting Harley Davidson or the club colors.

Doesn't that depend on the god you believe in?

Not really. I think it depends on the God that exists. What you believe is utterly irrelevant with respect to what a, or the God might do or not do. Again, belief does not create the deity, the deity is (or may be) the deity and one's belief may be true, false or incomplete.[/quote]

Well, that depends. There is power in "belief" even if what is believed in does not exist or is not real.

Fair enough. There is no evidence against it, and there is some supposedly scientific speculation that belief (or perhaps the decision point) does in fact create the thing believed in some other multiverse.

However, it would also depend on the gods, if any, that exist, sure. And, I've heard folks talk about gods having many different habits and personalities. I've not seen any reason to believe your anecdotal version any more than theirs, so why would I be concerned about insulting the "god who doesn't do miracles for those who insult him" or the one who will "burn people in hell?" Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence for your assertions about this god?

None that I'm personally aware of. That of course doesn't mean such evidence does not exist or that no one is aware of such evidence. Then again, it may be that the evidence that does exist does exist but is not of a critically robust scientific nature because of human lack of understanding about the true nature of nature and science. In other words, not knowing what we do not know about the scientific truths of the universe we are incapable of actually claiming that any knowledge we have is "scientific" because "science" is a self-defining term, just as "nature" is. In many cases throughout history "science" was entirely scientific until it wasn't, which is to say that following the scientific method of studying a thing is merely a process not necessarily a determiner of fact. This is of course because the invocation of the scientific method, loosely called "science" depends for its strength upon a number of things, including the knowledge of the investigators and the body of understanding of science as a whole. Garbage in, garbage out.

Referring back to A.C.C's quote, we see his understanding of the human frailty aspect of science that makes claims by those who insist they are being "scientific" worth nothing if they cannot present at least their own required quanta of evidence of a nature that meets their own standards of proof, which of course may themselves be faulty, but nonetheless represent the minimum standards to which any supposedly "scientific" claim, either positive or negative, must be held. To not do so is to be "unscientific" or, as I prefer to call it, "religious" in one's beliefs and arguments, and rather more than a little hypocritical as well.

Therefore, when someone makes an "un-evidenced" claim of some "supernatural" (otherwise defined as scientifically not-understood) event that they witnessed or experienced there is no rational scientific reason to disbelieve them other than an inherent bias in favor of only that which is subject to analysis according to present human scientific understanding, which as I've said, is hardly a "scientific" metric at all because that would be presuming that human scientific knowledge and understanding are perfect, which of course they aren't.

So what can one rationally and scientifically say about an un-evidenced claim of a phenomenon that appears to be outside of current naturalistic scientific understanding?

Nothing really, other than "I don't know" or perhaps "in light of a lack of critically robust scientific evidence presented to support your claim of observation, I am skeptical of the scientific soundness of your observation and/or your conclusion about both its nature and cause, but I'll be happy to review any such critically robust evidence you might care to provide before I form any firm conclusions of my own." This is the burden of good scientific practice and reasoning...admitting that you don't know what you don't know and withholding judgment unless and until you can demonstrate, using your own standards of proof, that the claim is either true or false.

Some people say that their god loves all mankind, even those that reject him and speak against him. So, whatever god you're talking about may be one who does miracles as much for sinners as for saints. It's amazing that you call for "critically robust scientific evidence" to demonstrate various things, but then you make direct statements about what "God" wants and does. Do you have any critically robust scientific evidence for your claims?

It was an analogy, not a statement of eternal truth. I would hypothesize that spending your life insulting and reviling a god might not lead to the optimal consequences, but it is just speculation...and sarcastic analogy.

So, just made up nothing, which is of no import.

Well, sarcastic humor actually, and the import of it is that irrational certainty about things you do not actually know about or understand can turn around and bite you in the ass unexpectedly from time to time. Kinda like mixing chlorine bleach and drain cleaner in the toilet at home, which creates phosgene gas, which can kill you.

Yeah, me to. Most of them have been either atheists or Atheist.

Most of the ones I've seen are theists and nontheist Tolerists TM. Particularly those who admit they aren't even honest about the beliefs they express....

You might be confusing debatorial position-taking and belief. They are two entirely different things. For further information, see Aristotle.[/quote]

No, I'm not confusing it at all. Theists I've encountered have been quite mendacious. Two-faced hypocrites and liars.

I'm sure you have. Then again is it mendaciousness, hypocrisy and lies, or is it religious belief? Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

And, your argumentation, as a nontheist Tolerist, is often pettifoggery and double-talk.

Yes, sometimes it is, but there is a purpose behind it each and every time.

You "seem" to argue from a position of dishonesty and vitriol.

Dishonesty no, vitriol, perhaps, sometimes, after I've patiently endured a lot of personal insult and derision. I have always said (you can look it up) that I will give better than I get when things go all flame-war and personal. The solution is not to get all personal about it. These debates are entirely impersonal and should remain that way. I'm no saint and never claimed to be one, and I have my moments of disgust and anger with the participants here where I respond vitriolically, that is certainly true. I try not to however, as you can see from our discussion, which has been quite polite and entertaining. But I've never shied from pouring a dose of vitriol on those who insist on making it personal, and I never will because that is nothing more than self-defense.

That's how you come across, to someone who has tried seriously to work through the arguments with you, given you the courtesy of straight answers and refrained from namecalling.

And I thought we were having SUCH a good time...

I deeply appreciate the lack of name calling, which is one major reason I've stayed with this discussion. As to "straight answers" I've carefully explained my methods and processes and why straight answers of the kind I believe you are asking for are not part of my debatorial process. You may not be satisfied with my explanations because you want more, but I'm very sorry, that's just how I roll, with everyone. It's nothing personal at all, I simply decline to give my enemies (and I do have enemies) ammunition with which to insult and attempt to impeach my arguments because it's happened to me so many times before. Any time I reveal anything personal, even in this forum, it is inevitably turned against me somehow, by someone, and is used to insult and deride me in circumstances where it's not even pertinent to the subject under discussion. I'm sure you've seen it here quite recently. I suspect that there are enemies of mine who keep archives of personal information I've revealed in the past precisely so they can trot out something I said years ago as a personal attack when they feel the urge.

So, I have my methods of debate and they are what they are. It's neither dishonesty nor trolling, it's self-defense and my attempts to maintain debatorial objectivity and distance so that I can resist making personal comments about others, something I try hard not to do but at which I am certainly not universally successful.

It seems like they have no moral code to guide them and persuade them to act like civilized human beings and they think it's okay to lie, cheat, steal and insult others without provocation at the drop of a hat. Thoroughly unpleasant people by and large, though there are exceptions.

In my view, people are largely the same, but religion does give folks a license to hurt people and call it good. Some religions even say it's o.k. to lie and steal from unbelievers, or even kill them. That's part of what supposed Gods bring to the table.

Some of them I suppose. But certainly not all of them, at least as described by their followers. Who knows what they actually want people to do? Not me.[/quote]

Funny how when you talk of theists, there is all sorts of benefit of the doubt, you point out "not all of them" and "who knows." For atheists though, every last one of them is uncivilized, liars, cheats and thieves.

Not all of them, just most of them and all of them that I've personally met. Then again, it could be part hyperbole as well, presented as a demonstration of the irrationality and unreason of making negative assumptions about people you don't really know based on your perception of their religious beliefs...kinda like a lot of people here do when a theist shows up and tries to engage in some honest debate about his or her beliefs. The reason I'm one of the only contrarian voices here, or at RatSkep, or at RDF, or at any other Atheist forum I've ever participated in is because I'm one of the only people willing to endure the disgusting, animalistic cruelty that a LOT of Atheists in such fora engage in the INSTANT a theist shows up trying to have a civil debate about his or her beliefs. The nature of some of the ad hominem attacks, veiled or overt, fill me with loathing and disgust which certainly can carry over to my opinions about those who post such mendacious vitriol. Oh well, if you piss me off enough I too can hurl insults with the best of them, and better than most, as evidenced by my banning from RDF.

If you are uncomfortable with me calling Atheists liars, cheats and thieves...or worse...then perhaps a critical review of Atheist doctrine, dogma and practice is something you might profit from, because it doesn't come out of nowhere, it is, in many cases, a mirror reflecting the behavior of Atheists towards those of differing opinion. When they insult and revile others, even by general reference, it's perfectly fair play to insult and revile them, by general reference. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And that's precisely why I am NOT an Atheist and refused to be identified as one. I do not wish to be associated with Atheism any more than I wish to be associated with radical Islam, Marxism or Nazism. I find them all to be reprehensible associations of bigots who by and large are undeserving of respect or acknowledgment. Of course there are exceptions, but in my personal opinion, if you're a true non-theist and not an anti-theist masquerading as an "atheist," you would like me eschew the title of "atheist" in order to avoid being properly characterized as an "Atheist," and you'd call yourself something else entirely in order to distance yourself from the scumbags who demean and shit upon the idea of "merely having no belief in God" by demonstrating every day that they have a vitriolic hatred of all things theistic that they are willing to attack every bit as viciously as any radical Muslim or fundamentalist Christian.

My basic rule is "if the shoe fits, wear it," and if you don't want to wear it, then pick another style and let everyone know it, as I do.

A theist liar and cheat tends to be worse than an atheist liar and cheat. The theist lies and cheats while pretending to follow a deity/religion that helps them behave morally, yet they violate their own precepts. At least an atheist liar and a cheat isn't also a blatant hypocrite in that way.[/quote]

Well, when it comes to comparative hypocrisy I'm not sure one can really quantify it in that way. An "atheist" liar and cheat would just be a regular liar and cheat who is without belief in god(s). But almost every liar and cheat who self-identifies as an "atheist" is actually an Atheist and every bit as much of a hypocritical religious bigot as any theist religious bigot.

There's an easy way out of being identified as an Atheist, and that is not to act or argue like one, which is something you have clearly demonstrated an aptitude for, for which I congratulate you.

You'd make a sterling Tolerist™ I think, if I, the Archbishop of Tolerism™, say so myself. Wanna be ordained?

[Forty Two]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I don't know.

Me neither.

Well, you know, any sufficiently advanced medical technology is indistinguishable from magic..... (and what that quote from A.C.C. means is that while it is "indistinguishable" from magic, it isn't magic.

Exactly! It's about knowledge and perception, and the key here is that our lack of knowledge and our biased perceptions have no effect on the object of knowledge...unless you're a Schroedingerist.

Yes, so the chiropractor and the family should understand that what appears miraculous to them is probably not. That's that A.C.C. meant when he wrote that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

It's not science that's wrong. It's the chiropractor. Science says "I don't know." The chiropractor says "I do know, and it's magic."

[Forty Two]

Well, without critically robust scientific evidence, then what weight should we give your assertion about what you think it "seems" like God does?

Whatever weight you feel is appropriate of course. That's the thing, you see, you get to have and hold your beliefs and perceptions and understandings and it's not up to me to criticize them merely because I might disagree with you.

Ah, but you do. Not only do you criticize atheism, but you personally attack atheists and denigrate them.

We can always debate such things, but a difference of opinion, and that's what all beliefs amount to, is no reason to resort to personal insults or derision.

But, you routinely resort to personal insults and derision.

I want to note right here and now that I mean that as a general statement of Tolerist™ dogma and orthodoxy and not any sort of intimation that you, personally, are guilty of such bad behavior. But many here, and in all similar fora, are guilty, and such actions are not "peaceable" and therefore Tolerists™ are free to respond to such non-peaceable actions as necessary and as they feel called to do.

That must be why you engage in personal attacks and derision against people who haven't directed the same to you. You know there are others out there who have, and you give yourself license to deride and attack anyone who you think is on their team.

Which is why I posted the OP. I knew full well that insult and derision would be the result because Atheists are highly predictable in that way, which would give me entre to debate the subject for rather a long time, as is usually the case with my threads...most of which seem to be some of the longest running threads on this somewhat moribund Atheist forum.

You seem to equate lack of belief in miracles as a personal attack.

In any case, I went through the first 5 or so pages of this thread, and not a single person leveled any insults or derision upon anyone else, as far as I can see. So, would you mind linking to the first post where someone insulted and derided? I would like an example of what you claim is insult and derision. Apparently, it doesn't take much.
I, the Archbishop of Tolerism™, say so myself. Wanna be ordained? [/quote]

[Seth]

Well, without critically robust scientific evidence, then what weight should we give your assertion about what you think it "seems" like God does?

Whatever weight you feel is appropriate of course. That's the thing, you see, you get to have and hold your beliefs and perceptions and understandings and it's not up to me to criticize them merely because I might disagree with you.

Ah, but you do. Not only do you criticize atheism, but you personally attack atheists and denigrate them.

No, just Atheists generally, and I do so not merely because I disagree with Atheism or some particular Atheist, but when, and because the dogmatic insults of Atheists attack others who have no voice here. Mean-spirited attacks on other people and their faith, those who neither participate here nor commit any initiations of force or fraud in their own lives but instead live peaceably and practice their faith, are not peaceable actions by Atheists, they are disgusting bigotry and often both cruel and heartless and it is my right, and my duty, to defend such persons against the evil forces of Atheism. Such evil, heartless, arrogant people do not fall under the protective umbrella of Tolerism™ precisely because their actions and statements are grossly and irredeemably intolerant, as are the statements, opinions and actions of, by way of example, Iranian mullahs, the Taliban, ISIS and any other individual or group that espouses and supports the initiation of force or fraud against others.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then it doesn't apply to you.

We can always debate such things, but a difference of opinion, and that's what all beliefs amount to, is no reason to resort to personal insults or derision.

But, you routinely resort to personal insults and derision.

No, group insults and derision actually. See above. That's entirely different. When I resort to personal insults here, even ones that are fully justifiable because they are responses to initiations of personal attack against me or other who may be innocent, I get hammered for it, and I try not to do so for that reason.

I want to note right here and now that I mean that as a general statement of Tolerist™ dogma and orthodoxy and not any sort of intimation that you, personally, are guilty of such bad behavior. But many here, and in all similar fora, are guilty, and such actions are not "peaceable" and therefore Tolerists™ are free to respond to such non-peaceable actions as necessary and as they feel called to do.

That must be why you engage in personal attacks and derision against people who haven't directed the same to you.

Any examples we might discuss? Tolerism™ does not require that a non-peaceable action be taken against me before I am justified in acting in self defense. Self defense, you see, includes defending others as well.

You know there are others out there who have, and you give yourself license to deride and attack anyone who you think is on their team.

If one is part of the anti-religious, anti-theist bigotry brigade one is not acting in a peaceable manner and therefore those actions lie outside of the protections of civilized society, and Tolerism™ does NOT require the toleration of non-peaceable actions. In fact, it expects members to come to the defense of those who are acting peaceably when they are attacked, either physically or philosophically, even if they don't know the persons attacked personally. Tolerism™ takes seriously Edmund Burke's famous quote "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Which is why I posted the OP. I knew full well that insult and derision would be the result because Atheists are highly predictable in that way, which would give me entre to debate the subject for rather a long time, as is usually the case with my threads...most of which seem to be some of the longest running threads on this somewhat moribund Atheist forum.

You seem to equate lack of belief in miracles as a personal attack.

Hardly. It's not about belief in miracles you see, it's about rational thought and peaceable actions and speech.

In any case, I went through the first 5 or so pages of this thread, and not a single person leveled any insults or derision upon anyone else, as far as I can see. So, would you mind linking to the first post where someone insulted and derided? I would like an example of what you claim is insult and derision. Apparently, it doesn't take much.

I'm not necessarily referring to anything anyone who is a member of this forum said, I'm referring to the general practice of adherents of Atheism of attacking and deriding theists and theism as a matter of orthodoxy. If you're denying that Atheism and its adherents engage in such bigotry, I doubt there is much point in my posting ten thousand pages of insults hurled at people of faith from this forum, not to mention RatSkep and RDF. You can go review them yourself. I call insulting religion and people of faith Atheist orthodoxy because it very obviously is just exactly that. I've been doing this for more than two decades and there are common behaviors found in fora such as this that simply do not brook denial. This forum is sometimes better than others, particularly since the disappearance of rEvolutionist and a couple of others, but it's my long experience that the core belief of every Atheist forum is anti-theist bigotry and it's public expression. The degree of bigotry and hatred I've seen from Atheists is every bit as grotesque as any anti-Semite or racial bigot I've ever encountered.