Dawkins, you got some 'splaining to do....

[Seth]

That's a pretty selective miracle. And a bastard of a god that lets all the other kids die with the agony of bone cancer and the like.

Well, are you surprised? Don't you make much of the Old Testament and what a right bastard God is/was/will be?

That, however, doesn't mean that God does not exist, or that God does not produce miracles.

[JimC]

That's a pretty selective miracle. And a bastard of a god that lets all the other kids die with the agony of bone cancer and the like.

Well, are you surprised? Don't you make much of the Old Testament and what a right bastard God is/was/will be?

That, however, doesn't mean that God does not exist, or that God does not produce miracles.

I think you get a kick out of a fascist old bastard of a god...

[Seth]

I don't have to explain how it survived.

No, you can't explain it, so you evade and dismiss it.

You are the one who is implying a positive assertion that God did it.

I made no implication or assertion at all. I simply want you Atheists to explain the events according to your own metrics. Now get to it.

You posted an article about miracles, troll.

No, I posted an article about a sick child who was expected to die and suddenly didn't die and recovered in a manner that the physicians in charge of the case are unable to explain.

I'll tell you how the child survived. It started breathing by natural processes just as you and I breathe by natural processes. A doctor taking a guess that the child can't breathe on it's own is only a guess. He was wrong. No need to invoke God.

I didn't invoke God. You did.

It's up to you to explain it.

No it's not. I posted an article stating certain events and facts along with quotes from involved individuals. It's up to you to show how these events happened or admit that there is no scientific explanation for the events.

The events clearly happened via natural processes.

Then you should be able to clearly explain exactly what natural processes took place...something that the physicians in charge could not do.

The only other option is that magic man did it.

Wrong.

Which is what you were implying by posting an article about miracles, troll.

Ah, a false dilemma fallacy. How refreshing!

There's no need to explain how this baby breathed any more than there is a need to explain how you or I just breathed 3 seconds ago.

Because you cannot. Nor can you explain the other things that occurred. So you evade, as usual.

[Seth]

That's a pretty selective miracle. And a bastard of a god that lets all the other kids die with the agony of bone cancer and the like.

Well, are you surprised? Don't you make much of the Old Testament and what a right bastard God is/was/will be?

That, however, doesn't mean that God does not exist, or that God does not produce miracles.

I think you get a kick out of a fascist old bastard of a god...

No, I'm just smart enough and rational enough to know that I don't know everything about everything and I'm unafraid to admit that I don't know whether God exists or not. But until someone explains why and how this child recovered it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some outside agency acted in a manner that we primitive humans might interpret as "miraculous" or even "magic."

[pErvinalia]

I don't have to explain how it survived.

No, you can't explain it, so you evade and dismiss it.

You are the one who is implying a positive assertion that God did it.

I made no implication or assertion at all. I simply want you Atheists to explain the events according to your own metrics. Now get to it.

You posted an article about miracles, troll.

No, I posted an article about a sick child who was expected to die and suddenly didn't die and recovered in a manner that the physicians in charge of the case are unable to explain.

I'll tell you how the child survived. It started breathing by natural processes just as you and I breathe by natural processes. A doctor taking a guess that the child can't breathe on it's own is only a guess. He was wrong. No need to invoke God.

I didn't invoke God. You did.

It's up to you to explain it.

No it's not. I posted an article stating certain events and facts along with quotes from involved individuals. It's up to you to show how these events happened or admit that there is no scientific explanation for the events.

The events clearly happened via natural processes.

Then you should be able to clearly explain exactly what natural processes took place...something that the physicians in charge could not do.

The only other option is that magic man did it.

Wrong.

Which is what you were implying by posting an article about miracles, troll.

Ah, a false dilemma fallacy. How refreshing!

There's no need to explain how this baby breathed any more than there is a need to explain how you or I just breathed 3 seconds ago.

Because you cannot. Nor can you explain the other things that occurred. So you evade, as usual.

I'm not evading, troll. It breathed the same way that you and I breath. Mystery solved. Unless you think God made you breath 3 seconds ago.

[mistermack]

If you want to prove a miracle :

1. Prove that the story is not invented or exaggerated. That accounts for 99 percent of these crackpot stories.
2. Prove that the doctors got it right. That accounts for the other one percent.

Funny how no miracle has EVER been proved.
Most turn out to be a pack of lies.

[Seth]

If you want to prove a miracle :

1. Prove that the story is not invented or exaggerated. That accounts for 99 percent of these crackpot stories.
2. Prove that the doctors got it right. That accounts for the other one percent.

Funny how no miracle has EVER been proved.
Most turn out to be a pack of lies.

The Catholic Church has archives full of proofs of miracles which have not been disproven as miracles by science. This might be another one. Or not. I dunno.

Anyway, if you disbelieve the story, then it's up to YOU to prove it's false.

[mistermack]

If you want to prove a miracle :

1. Prove that the story is not invented or exaggerated. That accounts for 99 percent of these crackpot stories.
2. Prove that the doctors got it right. That accounts for the other one percent.

Funny how no miracle has EVER been proved.
Most turn out to be a pack of lies.

The Catholic Church has archives full of proofs of miracles which have not been disproven as miracles by science. This might be another one. Or not. I dunno.

Anyway, if you disbelieve the story, then it's up to YOU to prove it's false.

Why?

[pErvinalia]

He still doesn't get basic logic and rational inquiry. The person making the claim is required to provide proof. You (via this story) are claiming that god dunnit. Where's your proof, troll?

[Seth]

If you want to prove a miracle :

1. Prove that the story is not invented or exaggerated. That accounts for 99 percent of these crackpot stories.
2. Prove that the doctors got it right. That accounts for the other one percent.

Funny how no miracle has EVER been proved.
Most turn out to be a pack of lies.

The Catholic Church has archives full of proofs of miracles which have not been disproven as miracles by science. This might be another one. Or not. I dunno.

Anyway, if you disbelieve the story, then it's up to YOU to prove it's false.

Why?

Because you're challenging the veracity of the report.

[Seth]

He still doesn't get basic logic and rational inquiry. The person making the claim is required to provide proof. You (via this story) are claiming that god dunnit. Where's your proof, troll?

I made no claim at all. I simply related a story about a series of events that occurred. I drew no conclusions and made no claims. It is you who is making claims about the events, therefore it is up to you to prove your claims.

[mistermack]

Because you're challenging the veracity of the report.

I'm pointing out the other possible explanations, rather than divine intervention.

Over here in the UK, we have a whole industry based on doctors getting it wrong.
There are lawyers who never do anything else, but pursue doctors who got it wrong.
I realise that America probably doesn't have such a litigation culture, so I suppose you would be unaware that mistakes can actually happen in the field of medicine.

[pErvinalia]

He still doesn't get basic logic and rational inquiry. The person making the claim is required to provide proof. You (via this story) are claiming that god dunnit. Where's your proof, troll?

I made no claim at all. I simply related a story about a series of events that occurred. I drew no conclusions and made no claims. It is you who is making claims about the events, therefore it is up to you to prove your claims.

Umm, no we're not (making claims). The story, that you posted, claimed goddunnit. Simple logic and rational inquiry, Seth. You should try and learn about it some day.

[Rum]

To quote one who many of us here are fans 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. (Often attributed to Hitchens, but originally from Carl Sagan).

[piscator]

God kills a lot more babies than Dawkins ever saved. Ipsy dicks it, queue ee dee.