'Splain this one Atheists...

[Tero]

What evidence, Seth. The Dailymail?

[piscator]

Here's a better one for you angry strident close-minded atheists to 'splain:

Jeanna Geise was only 15 years old when she became the world's first known survivor of Rabies without receiving any vaccination. Her miraculous survival has not only challenged a time-honored scientific fact, but has also brought about a new method of Rabies treatment, known as the Milwaukee Protocol. It had long been thought that Rabies is 100% fatal in humans who are not vaccinated. However, to the surprise of the medical world, Jeanna showed that fatal the virus can be beaten sans vaccination.

Is Rabies Really 100% Fatal?

[JimC]

The normal curve has tiny little ends...

[piscator]

..that one for sure...Crazy it still kills 55,000 people/yr, and is still almost completely lethal in a week or less once symptoms show. The only treatment known involves a vaccine as well, and does not work after symptoms present.

You don't want to encourage friendly Arctic foxes up on the tundra. Even though they're cute and fluffy and will come right up to and follow you around like the neighborhood dog as they've evolved to follow polar bears and collect scraps, rabies is a social disease among Arctic foxes and 1:5 can infect you in some years.
Still, I've sometimes found it best to feed them tuna sandwiches until they can't move fast enough to keep up. ...

[mistermack]

Denial of evidence is not evidence of falsity of the evidence.

What's "non scientific" about a teenage girl with an all-but-universally fatal brain injury suddenly and inexplicably recovering? Are you really so dogmatically resistant to reason that you reject one possible answer when the evidence is staring you in the face? And if it's not divine intervention, then, as I asked, please provide a rational scientific explanation of how this event came to pass. Simply denying it is intellectually bankrupt and scientifically insufficient. It happened. Either there's a "natural" explanation for it or there's a "supernatural" explanation for it. So which is it, and why?

There is no evidence. All there is is a load of old shit, posted by you.
The day that that qualifies as evidence, is the day that god turns out to be Harry Potter.

[Seth]

What evidence, Seth. The Dailymail?

The Daily Mail just reports. If you have evidence that the events reported did not occur or were falsified or even that the persons quoted were either misquoted or the quotes were fabricated, then by all means produce it.

Until then, your circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is rejected.

[Seth]

Here's a better one for you angry strident close-minded atheists to 'splain:

Jeanna Geise was only 15 years old when she became the world's first known survivor of Rabies without receiving any vaccination. Her miraculous survival has not only challenged a time-honored scientific fact, but has also brought about a new method of Rabies treatment, known as the Milwaukee Protocol. It had long been thought that Rabies is 100% fatal in humans who are not vaccinated. However, to the surprise of the medical world, Jeanna showed that fatal the virus can be beaten sans vaccination.

Is Rabies Really 100% Fatal?

Because one person survived through treatment developed by medical science does not mean that all such events are the result of medical science. That's a simple logical fact.

[Seth]

Denial of evidence is not evidence of falsity of the evidence.

What's "non scientific" about a teenage girl with an all-but-universally fatal brain injury suddenly and inexplicably recovering? Are you really so dogmatically resistant to reason that you reject one possible answer when the evidence is staring you in the face? And if it's not divine intervention, then, as I asked, please provide a rational scientific explanation of how this event came to pass. Simply denying it is intellectually bankrupt and scientifically insufficient. It happened. Either there's a "natural" explanation for it or there's a "supernatural" explanation for it. So which is it, and why?

There is no evidence. All there is is a load of old shit, posted by you.
The day that that qualifies as evidence, is the day that god turns out to be Harry Potter.

In other words, you simply dismiss the evidence that is part of the public record without bothering to even examine it, much less critically analyze and either rebut or confirm it. I tend to characterize that sort of argument as being a completely dogmatic religious belief unsupported by a shred of rational or logical evidence, therefore sauce, goose, gander.

[piscator]

What about the mounting evidence of buffalo fuckery that is part of the public record?

[mistermack]

In other words, you simply dismiss the evidence that is part of the public record without bothering to even examine it, much less critically analyze and either rebut or confirm it. I tend to characterize that sort of argument as being a completely dogmatic religious belief unsupported by a shred of rational or logical evidence, therefore sauce, goose, gander.

A blog on a shit-newspaper website is evidence?

I think your own ''standards'' are lit up for all to see there.

So any bollocks I write here is part of the ''public record'' and needs to be critically analysed and either rebutted or confirmed.
That's ok then. There is no god. I discovered this by divine revelation. Rebut or confirm.

[Tero]

Like virgin birth, this needs more proof.

"Her brain had slipped down into her spinal column ... The brain had turned to mush," Henningsen said. "They had to do CPR and go through extreme lengths to get her back."

Where are the MRI's to support this? And how do you prove MRI's anyway? They could easily be doctored.

[Seth]

What about the mounting evidence of buffalo fuckery that is part of the public record?

What about it?

[piscator]

How do you plea?

[Seth]

In other words, you simply dismiss the evidence that is part of the public record without bothering to even examine it, much less critically analyze and either rebut or confirm it. I tend to characterize that sort of argument as being a completely dogmatic religious belief unsupported by a shred of rational or logical evidence, therefore sauce, goose, gander.

A blog on a shit-newspaper website is evidence?

Your personal value judgments as to the veracity of the particular website do not count as evidence that the story is false. If you believe it to be false, then you need to show your work and your evidence proving your claim. Names were named, dates were given, locations were identified and photographs published, so there's no reason to believe that the facts of the story are false merely because you are skeptical of the claims (or opinions) of those who were interviewed. A rational person (which evidently disincludes you) would demand some substantiation of the falsity of the story before drawing a conclusion that it's false. Your sole argument consists of an ad hominem attack on the news organization that is not, so far as I can tell, based in anything but your own religious bigotry and bias.

I think your own ''standards'' are lit up for all to see there.

My standards are irrelevant. It's your standards that are under examination. You, as a putative rationalist, demand certain standards of evidence of those who make theistic claims, but you are unwilling to provide those exact same standards of evidence in support of your skeptical claims. It's hypocritical, although entirely commonplace here, and I choose to point out that hypocrisy when I see it.

So any bollocks I write here is part of the ''public record'' and needs to be critically analysed and either rebutted or confirmed.

And that's exactly what I'm doing.

That's ok then. There is no god. I discovered this by divine revelation. Rebut or confirm.

Okay. Show your critically robust evidence in support of your claim that God exists. Any news reportage we might investigate?

[Seth]

Like virgin birth, this needs more proof.

"Her brain had slipped down into her spinal column ... The brain had turned to mush," Henningsen said. "They had to do CPR and go through extreme lengths to get her back."

Where are the MRI's to support this? And how do you prove MRI's anyway? They could easily be doctored.

Er, that's your job. I'm sure you can track down the hospital and doctor and investigate further if you are interested in disproving the claim of divine intervention.

But of course you won't.

And again what we are left with is evidence of a miraculous spontaneous healing, source and mechanism unknown, that neither medical science or you can explain.

As for me, my response is, "What a wonderful story, if true. I have no idea how or why it happened, but that it did happen (if it did) is an exciting and heart-filling mystery that I take great joy in hearing about. If it's a lie, oh well, it's still a nice story."