About Atehistwatch, method and madness

I know it seems like I'm just railing against individuals on CARM. They are not all on CARM. yet the problem is I can't conduct a study becuase I don't have money and I don't have the connections to a universe anymore. One can see thousands of examples of what what I'm discusing all over the net. I can't present a thousand examples in one post. I do the participant observer thing and show one example that typifies the many. Over time you see the accumulation and you see it builds up. I have now demonstrated (given the original version of the website that's gone and this one) several hundred examples: hateful, childish, silly, unthinking, unlearned little hate group member sounding off about things he knows not of. One can easily verify the view point by going to the net.

On every message board where atheists gather, every single day of the world we find silly stupid people echoing fallacious ideas and ignorant bigotry agaisnt a world view they dedicating to not learning about. They even encode their ignorance in an official justification for not learning called "the Courtier's reply" which is nothing more than excuse to not look into the facts and ignore the disproof of their fallacious position.

*Atheists use the Courtier's replay as a party line excuse to remain ignorant

*Many atheists as a party line sanctioning hate tactics and hate speech

*they demonstrate a huge amount of organization and money

*Some demonstrate a belief in the genetic superiority of atheists

*some have advocated forcing in forcing their position on the hatred target group of Christianity

*They a vast propaganda machine in the from of magazines, websites, academic projects

It's so obvious it's a movement only an ostrich could mistake it. It's clear that we need an Atheistwatch to keep the thinking community a prized of the movement and what it's doing to destroy the most important aspects of life.

John Loftus Has No Clothes

Loftus is a former student of William Lane Craig who became an atheist a few years ago and has been involved in the selling of his own books.I can't criticize that. He also started the Debunking Christianity Blog. He is a fine intellectual but often stoops beneath himself and such is not the case again. He is doing analysis worthy of a small child. John can do much better and I don't know why he doesn't point his efforts toward show casing his intellectual acuity. The atheists community in general is on the war path about Prayer. I don't know but these things go in cycles. The big craze now is "disproving" prayer. This amounts to foolish wasted mocking of prayer which most atheists don't understand to begin with.

This time John has a gimmick. It's a big chart. you just can't argue against a guy with a big chart. The chart is pictured above. More than a gimmick, it's window dressing that functions as a vehicle for him to make the amputee argument. He's imparting programing to the acolytes so they will how to rationalize away answered prayers, when they hear apologists give examples. Then in the text he raises the amputee argument. What he's really saying is unless something is so obvious we can't question it we can always rationalize it away so we never have to accept answers to prayer.


Let's look at the explanation of the chart:

Debunking Christianity Blog

Believers all around the world claim that their particular god answers petitionary prayers. An answered prayer is a request that is granted while an unanswered one is not, okay? From my experience all that's going on is something called selective observation, where a believer counts the hits and discounts the misses. Scientific studies have shown that these prayers don't get answered any better than luck. So if believers really want to know if God answers prayer then here's what to do:

Right away we have the argument turning upon as shallow and inadequate definition. Praying for God to do something is a subset of prayer. This is not the definition of prayer it's the definition of "petition" which is a part of prayer. Prayer is soemthing atheist don't understand, communion, it's hanging out with God. Atheists can't conceive of doing that because they hate themselves and they don't believe God can love them, which is why don't believe in God. At least I think this is demonstrably true of the more virulent. Anyone who gave up a relationship with God is bound to be bitter and disappointed and fulfill, so when person says "I used to be a Christian, now I'm an atheist" he's issues. He thinks hes' wised up either becuase he didn't get something or he was never really "in the know." Nothing demonstates the shallow nature of faith faster than not knowing what prayer is. Notice the people who attack prayer in this way never attack the communion aspect becasue they don't understand it. They probably never had any communion with God so they don't know it's there. Of course shallow athiests who have no clue as to religious life in the first place just dismiss it as "imaginary friend time." To them the only bottom line can be "getting God to do things." Let's look at how Lofuts concieves of this:

He refers to the Christian concept of God as "their particular god" meaning he does not understand the most basic thing about Christianity, the concept of God. There is no such thing as "the particular Christian God." We don't have "a particular God" we have a concept of God, the only God there can be. Atheists misunderstand that because they think it means one personality as opposed to another. That's their concept of God, following fundamentalism, is just that of a big man in the sky, so this particular big man as opposed to any big man. They have no concept of the Ground of Being, or "that which nothing greater than can be concieved." All thinking alludes them. Another good index of a man's former belief or faith, there wasn't any. He did actually study with Criag and he's read books and knows names, perhaps this reflects on Craig's teaching that I would not know. Yet he does not get the basic concept concept of God. Not to put John down for this, since most Christians don't either. Truth be told John does understand this, he's just barking at the fundies.

Of course he dismisses prayer as "selective observation." Meaning whenever you get something your way you say it's an answer and when you don't then it's not but you ignore that based upon getting some answers. You would get some things your way anyway so it's not really answered. prayer. Of course atheist would have to think at 100% of all prayer must be answered. It would be interesting to see if that would cause them to admit there was an answered prayer. This is easy to answer I'll get that in a moment. Of cousre the chart above is all set up so that it's loaded agaisnt the believer. He's just doing the opposite of his accusations of believers. He's doing selective observation in reverse. He's saying answers may be ignored became some are not given. Notice he explains away any answer, got a raise but it was expected that doesn't count. So you expected it, what did you pray about it for? That's standard, no faith prayer, Atheists don't take into account the lack of faith. Any "failure" of God to give me what I want is God's failure not mine. It they donk't ever consider the impossiblity of answers. One delivery of an impossibility should prove prayer works. Then can't have that because they must deny the truth at all costs.

Keep track, okay, just like the examples in my study sheet. List the specific prayers you pray. Pray that they are answered within a specific time period--why not? Isn't that what you want? Keep in mind that you generally will only pray for things you expect can happen too. You do not pray that a mountain is uprooted and planted in the sea. So already your prayer requests are limited since you do not pray for the kinds of things Jesus told you could happen. Why? Because you live in a scientific era. Get. Point The.

But he's not keeping track. He dismissing answer, one can see that from the chart. He's explaining away every single answer. Of course the chart is loaded to show no success. How do I know because I did keep track. I spent years keeping a prayer journal. I got hundreds of answered prayers many of them impossible. I used to have a big list. Just a couple that come to mind:

(1) father had prostate problem, after prayer no trace of problem.
(2) sister prayed God would show me still loves me and has a use for me, next day in line at fast food joint stranger came up and repeated word for word exactly what my sister had prayed for me.
(3) father having heart attack ER guys watch vitals reversing and condition backs up and goes back to normal as they watch and freak out.
(4) father dead for 11 minutes (another time) comes back to life with strong rythmical heart beat his own doctor (not a bleiever) says "this is clearly a miracle."

Just a few off hand but John would have me dismiss and talk down each one because can never accept the possibility. In naturalism is nothing more than circular reasoning. We start with the assumption answers are impossible, any answer one seems to get is atomically wrong and must be discounted. Now he's just asking to keep your own bleief in check and remind your self each day that you don't believe in miracles. When you get an answer you should say "this is not an answer." O wow what do you know. The end of the month I have no answers Amazing! Not so amazing when you are predispossed to write off answers anyway.

skeptic:miracles don't happen.

Believer: what about this one

Skeptic: It can't be a miracle

Believer: why not?

Skeptic: Because miracles don't' happen.

Believer: that one just did

Skeptic: not a miracle.

Believer: how do you know

Skeptic: miracles don't' happen.

Then be brutally honest with the results. No fudging like horoscope readers regularly do. Was the prayer answered exactly as you prayed it, or not? No punting to what believers around the globe do, either. No saying, "well God knows best," or that "he didn't give me what I wanted but what I needed." Then see what happens. See how many times your prayers are answered, and of those prayers that are answered how many of them are truly out of the ordinary? I suspect if you really want to know if God answers prayers you'll find this an interesting exercise.

Let's talk about who is capable of being brutally honest. Is the atheist being brutally honest to say "I did get a raise after praying, but I would have anyway." Of course the atheist will never be brutally honest to admit that he had no faith, he prayed for something he didn't believe God would answer, thus should be no surprise that it wasn't answered. Is it a fair test if you "queer" the deal form the outset? When you do get an answer then you try your raddest to explain it away, if you can't you say but there is a rational explanation we will find it we look long enough. I've seen them wheedle and obfuscate long enough to know they will say anything to keep from admitting even one can't be explained. Forget "miracle" for "answer," they wont admit there's anything inexplicable.

here are just a few of the excuses I've gotten from them in response to Lourdes miracle:

The case was 1923 Charles Anne young seminary student dying of TB. The night he was dying, at the end, lungs decimated doctors gave no hope for him living any longer (to the day) he prays next morning lungs are like new (they were x-rayed). The X-rays still exist, they can be purchased form the Vatican I spoke with a member of miracle committee who swore to me this is real. But atheist will to anything to keep from admitting even one case (which is why it's so laughably to say keep a chart).

(1) you don't have the original X-rays
(2) I don't have to look it up or buy the X-rays because I know it can't be true
(3) X-rays are made up

this culminate in one of them saying "I wouldn't believe my own eyes if it saw it." That's real fair. I really trust this guy to keep a chart of answered prayers.

In addition to their own personal lack of honesty, most atheists or people who would turn to a site like DC to make a last dict effort to save their faith (which they are not seeking to save at that point--you don't turn to an organized bent on destruction of something to save it). Not in a relationship with God, in fact quite the opposites, cultivating lives of enmity with God, they expect a fair prayer test? sure. why? why should they expect would answer them especially piddling things like raises?

Pray for some miracles while you're at it, like for an amputee to have his limb grow back, or for your God to change a tragic accident the night before so that a carload of kids did not die in that car crash. Hey, why not? If God can foreknow your prayers then he could do that, just as you expect your prayers to be answered that no one was hurt as soon as you hear there has been an accident, even though it already happened.

Pray for limbs to grow. such a stupid gimmick and they never tired of it. They never never never get tried of it, even you I've produced a number examples of claims (a new pair of lungs is as amazing as limbs growing back--Jesus putting back on the ear in the garden).** I've produced a spiritual theory about why it wont happen much.* It certainly requires a lot of faith which these atheists work hard at not having. The stupidest thing is it does not disprove the miracle know of. It's not a disproof of anything. this is a pure example of atheists hiding in the gap. There's a gap. We don't know we don't have a good example of God doing this, but we have great evidence of God doing other things. This becomes nothing more than an excuse to ignore the examples we do have. This is a great example of atheist brain washing. What's he really telling them. Look what he's really saying. Keep a record of unanswered prayers, include stuff like amputees not getting limbs resorted. He's really saying load the experiment with pre set results. Pray a thousand times for something you know what happen then say "I got 1000 prayers declined." That really overshadows the one you got hu? You knew you wouldn't get them, then you rationalize the one's you do get as "that would have happened anyway." Be brutally honest now, find a good reason to ignore what God did for you. He doesn't say be brutally honest to accept what God does for you.

Then of course I have also presented good reasons why God doesn't answer prayers all the time or why there has to be zone in which prayers are qualified to be answered. These are actually part of my theodicy argument, but they also work here. They are my free will defense but they explain why God doesn't heal amputees (at not often). It's an interesting concept actually. I show that there are zones in which one can move and in those zones God is more likely to answer prayer. Part of that is faith, also God's timing, it has to fit in with other plans and there are other things we are not given to know about. The real issue why is everyone not automatically in the zone. The answer deals with what I said above about prayer in general, it's more about inner development than about getting stuff.

Voila:


Basic assumptions


There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.

(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.


The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.


(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.

That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.

(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.

The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.

The argument would look like this:


(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.

(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).

(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices

(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.


This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.

This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:


(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.

(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us

(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.

(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.


In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.

This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.

Objection:

One might object that this couldn't outweigh babies dying or the horrors of war or the all the countless injustices and outrages that must be allowed and that permeate human history. It may seem at first glance that free will is petty compared to human suffering. But I am advocating free will for the sake any sort of pleasure or imagined moral victory that accrues from having free will, it's a totally pragmatic issue; that internalizing the value of the good requires that one choose to do so, and free will is essential if choice is required. Thus it is not a capricious or selfish defense of free will, not a matter of choosing our advantage or our pleasure over that of dying babies, but of choosing the key to saving the babies in the long run,and to understanding why we want to save them, and to care about saving them, and to actually choosing their saving over our own good.

In deciding what values outweigh other values we have to be clear about our decision making paradigm. From a utilitarian standpoint the determinate of lexically ordered values would be utility, what is the greatest good for the greatest number? This would be determined by means of outcome, what is the final tally sheet in terms of pleasure over pain to the greatest aggregate? But why that be the value system we decide by? It's just one value system and much has been written about the bankruptcy of consequentialist ethics. If one uses a deontological standard it might be a different thing to consider the lexically ordered values. Free will predominates because it allows internalization of the good. The good is the key to any moral value system. This could be justified on both deontolgoical and teleological premises.

My own moral decision making paradigm is deontological, because I believe that teleological ethics reduces morality to the decision making of a ledger sheet and forces the individual to do immoral things in the name of "the greatest good for the greatest number." I find most atheists are utilitarians so this will make no sense to them. They can't help but think of the greatest good/greatest number as the ultaimte adage, and deontology as empty duty with no logic to it. But that is not the case. Deontology is not just rule keeping, it is also duty oriented ethics. The duty that we must internalize is that ultimate duty that love demands of any action. Robots don't love. One must freely choose to give up self and make a selfless act in order to act from Love. Thus we cannot have a loved oriented ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.

The choice of free will at the expense of countless lives and untold suffering cannot be an easy thing, but it is essential and can be justified from either deontolgoical or teleological perspective. Although I think the deontologcial makes more sense. From the teleological stand point, free will ultimately leads to the greatest good for the greatest number because in the long run it assumes us that one is willing to die for the other, or sacrifice for the other, or live for the other. That is essential to promoting a good beyond ourselves. The individual sacrifices for the good of the whole, very utilitarian. It is also deontolgocially justifiable since duty would tell us that we must give of ourselves for the good of the other.

Thus anyway you slice it free will outweighs all other concerns because it makes available the values of the good and of love. Free will is the key to ultimately saving the babies, and saving them because we care about them, a triumph of the heart, not just action from wrote. It's internalization of a value system without which other and greater injustices could be foisted upon an unsuspecting humanity that has not been tought to choose to lay down one's own life for the other.


**There is were a couple of saints in the middle ages who were said to have done this. I don't have that info on my site. what I link to above is a page showing claims, although not good evidence, or resurrections from a whole skeleton of a person five years dead to life and flesh an blood again, I think is more miraculous than a limb growing back. the evidence is not good but the athiest claim is "we never hear of it." So now you have. We do hear of it, their little gimmick is untrue.

Catholic Answers

letter written byJohn Damascene, he forged a letter, exactly similar in chirography, purporting to have been written by John to the Isaurian, and offering to betray into his hands the city of Damascus. The letter he sent to the caliph. Notwithstanding his councillor's earnest avowal of innocence, the latter accepted it as genuine and ordered that the hand that wrote it be severed at the wrist. Thesentence was executed, but, according to his biographer, through the intervention of the Blessed Virgin, the amputated hand was miraculously restored.

same source, different post

If you want I can tell you about St. Anthony of Padua 1000 years ago:
St. Anthony is also the patron saint of amputees. In Padua, a young man confessed to St. Anthony that he had kicked his mother. Later, in remorse at St. Anthony's remonstrance, he cut off his own foot. St. Anthony, hearing of this drastic action, came and reattached the amputated limb.

*Human body doesn't grow back limbs. This is the structure the body is given and when the structure is divided you are asking God not just to restore something to but actually traverse the laws and boundaries set for human organisms.

Good Old Atheist Incredulity

Here's a guy on a website trying to convene a bunch of know nothings, (I mean atheists) that there is documentation for miracles. I admit the claims are pretty wild. He actually has a site that claims an amputation grew back. But they don't really dismiss it for that reason. they dismiss it for no reason reason except that whenever he meets their burden of evidence they can keep coming up with more criteria.

these guys just illustrate so perfectly what liars atheists are. Everything they say about Catholic chruch and it's miracles is a lie, or it's an example of how they refuse to believe regardless of what the evidence shows. You can see this because they are obviously not willing to even give the evidence a chance and examine it.

http://www.matchdoctor.com/thread_87_18612_1/Medically_documented_Miracles.html

some message board. 
the miracle defender is named "bevrice"
I guess Bervely Rice. and is called "bev."

Bev:

Storm, there is an email address on there, email him, he will document it for you. I have another that has doctor's names and addresses on it, will post it. I put this on here because some said that there were no medically documented miracles.

This one has doctors names and addresses and ex rays.

eastham: (atheist)

This still doesn't make the documentation guidelines.
post reply view eastham's threads

Posts: 11,144 It has ex rays, doctors names, doctor's notes. the works.

I found many Catholic ones that pass that test according to the Catholic church.
post reply view bevrice's threads
Apr 5, 2007 @ 8:42 PM Medically documented Miracles
eastham

eatham

 I don't care about the denomination, documentation means the ability to written up in peer-reviewed journals. Less than that is a testimonial and not documentation.
post reply view eastham's threads

(in other words his excuse for not accepting the words of the doctor "yes I found this to be true" is because it has come from a journal. But the RCC has an academic journal that hey post stuff about Lourdes in, of course that's not good enough it have favors mriacles so it must be wrong and he rejects it. So he actually don't care about even "documentation.")

Kajae:

And the Catholics have proven soooo reliable. I really wouldn't use them to validate ANYTHING.

guilt by association. It must be wrong because it's catholic so it doesn't matter what the evidence shows. When they say they want evidence they don't mean it.

Except of course, child abuse laws.

quip about the Catholics, so they hold the scuttle butt of the day above the level of real evidence. Yea these guys such free thinkers, so so fair minded. they haven't got any concept of fairness. I was trust a pig in the mud to know more about fairness than an atheist.


Bev

Certainly, I would pray for someone who was dying.

eastham

But not help, typical.

(hateful scum just asserts that becasue she would pray she wouldn't help and then asserts a value judgment about her as a person based upon his foolish idiotic assertion that has not support. that's the atheist concept of "fair.")

storm bay

Bev your a complete joke,I've read through that site and nowhere does any doctor in any medical reports state or confirm her leg has grown back. They did operate to remove spurs from the bone, but all the rest relates to other procedures and cover all the other illnesses and complaints she has. Certainly not a healthy women by any stretch of the imagination.

he resorts to mocking and ridicule. He makes a comment about her worth as a human, based upon what? that her opinion differs from his. That's real fair! who can read this and deny that atheism is a hate group? This is no different than  KKK gay talking to a black person and saying "you are worthless because of you color!" You are worthless because you believe what I don't agree with! By this way this big thinking rationalist guy thinks that "your" means you are, as in "you're." "your" a complete is using the possessive form of you (yours) in place of "you are."

In other words Bev, its a fake, just like you nothing but deceit.

bev

I found many Catholic ones that pass that test according to the Catholic church.

storm bay

The catholic church, only requires 3 witnesses and doesn't need to include a medical doctor, but must include a representative of the church. The church has never been able to convince the scientific or medical profession that a medical miracle has happened, just the opposite.
post reply view stormbay's threads
Apr 5, 2007 @ 8:51 PM Medically documented Miracles
12knots

that's a lie of course. they don't just require that. they have a complex system of verification that certain does require very stringent use of medical evidence.



what follows are sites Bevrice gives that show miracles

post reply view 12knots' threads
Apr 5, 2007 @ 8:53 PM Medically documented Miracles
bevrice


Posts: 11,144 Carole's Doctors


Dr. James F. Coy, M.D.
Sunstate Preventive Medicine Institute

310 Nesbit Street

Post Office Box 511315

Punta Gorda, Fl 33951-1315

(941) 575-8080

Dr. James F. Coy M.D. is now the physician in complete authority over all medical decisions regarding the creative miracle of completion of my left leg.



Dr. Kenneth Levy M.D.
Advanced Orthopedics Center

1641 Tamiami Trail

Suite 1

Port Charlotte, Fl. 33948

(941) 629-6262





Orthopedic Specialist since 1986, Dr. Levy amputated my left leg below the kneecap in 1995. In the year 2000, Dr. Levy documented that my amputated left leg is growing back and is a creative miracle from God. There is no other explanation! (Dr. Levy is now retired and no longer involved in my case.)



Dr. David S. Goris, CPO


American Board Certified Prosthetist Orthotist

Sonlife Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc.

6111 Deltona Blvd.

Spring Hill, Fl. 34609

(352) 596-2257



bev

Dr. Goris is the President of Sonlife with extensive experience in both Prosthetics and Orthotics. He received his bachelors degree from Calvin College in 1976 and went on to receive his degree in Prosthetics and Orthotics from Northwestern University in 1980. He is certified by the American Board for Certification and meets their requirements for continuing education on a yearly basis. Some of his most recent studies include custom prosthetic restoration and implementation of Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology. Dr. Goris also certifies that my leg is a creative miracle from God.

Dr. Harvey Tritel, MD, FAC


Florida Heart Associates

2675 Winkler Ave.

Suite 460

Fort Myers, Fl 33901

(941) 936-3896





My Cardiac Specialist since 1989. Please refer to documents in the book regarding this miracle.



Todd D. Nowell, O. D.


After-image Eye Care. P.A.

Spring Hill, Florida 34606

(941) 352-688-1102 Phone





Examination July 17, 2006 Vision 20-20



Click here to download the free book to learn more about the miracles.


Okay, storm, here you go, call them.


post reply view bevrice's threads
Apr 5, 2007 @ 8:55 PM Medically documented Miracles
bevrice


Posts: 11,144 Buddha didn't believe in miracles.
post reply view bevrice's threads
Apr 5, 2007 @ 8:56 PM Medically documented Miracles
12knots


Posts: 6,400 Of course.

Nothing special about them. Kids play.

post reply view 12knots' threads
Apr 5, 2007 @ 8:56 PM Medically documented Miracles
eastham


Posts: 6,409 At least Storm, there is room built into the system for those who make the oppositive arguement. The opposing side must/should be represented. For example, Christopher Hitchens was interviewed and questioned extensively during discussion about Mother Theresa being cannonized.

Not so with Bev. That line was to make me expressly feel uncomfortable...not that it worked.
post reply view eastham's threads
Apr 6, 2007 @ 1:44 AM Medically documented Miracles
bevrice


Posts: 11,144 Catholic miracles at Lourdeshttp://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles2.htm

Catholics always make sure their miracles are medically documented, you know.
They won't even call it a miracle unless it is. They have rigid rules.

[Edited on 4/6/2007 1:54 AM]
post reply view bevrice's threads
Apr 6, 2007 @ 2:16 AM Medically documented Miracles
stormbay

Posts: 695 Bev there is no medically verifiable documents on either site, to support what you or they say, none whatsoever. If there were, then it could be accepted if the doctor states its a miracle but there is nothing. Believing the catholic church has any credibility is gullible in the extreme, when you see their history and the desperate efforts they go to in trying to lie, cheat and deceive their way out of anything they get caught out on.

that's a lie because there certain is. they have vast evidence and rules of evidence and medical exprints who judge the evidence. see my miracle pages on Doxa

atheist know all

Trolling to find evidence so desperately is not the sign of someone who knows their subject, just someone who clutches at straws without proper research. The sane of the world Bev, aren't as gullible and superstition as you.

 one of them just asserts that she's only trolling and doesn't' know these things even though she said one of those is her personal doctor. These know nothings are not willing to examine the evidence, not even willing to look at a single source.

post reply view stormbay's threads
Apr 6, 2007 @ 6:28 AM Medically documented Miracles
bevrice


Posts: 11,144 not trolling, you have doctors you can check with and phone numbers.

The Catholic Church calls very few healings miracles, they have to be medically certified.


here's the run down on Catholic miracles:


The claim for a miraculous cure is first examined by a medical board at the local level were it is claimed. The medical tribunal determines whether the disease was well-documented, had no hope of cure, that it is without any scientific explanation (no possible other causes, including the effects of medical care already received or spontaneous remission), and that it has continued (that is, it wasn't temporary). If it passes muster the decision is commited to a theological tribunal at the diocescan level.

The theological tribunal must determine whether it meets the criteria of a supernatural intervention. To be judged supernatural it must be beyond the power of created nature (including angels, good and bad). A disease might be caused by a fallen angel and then a "cure" result from the demon withdrawing his influence. The disease would remit with no explanation. For theologians, therefore, there is a clear preference for spontaneous cures of terminal or otherwise hopeless cases: the person with MS, Parkinsons, tuberculosis, cancer, etc. who is cured from one moment to the next, with diseased tissue becoming healthy instantaneously. Since the angels (good or bad) cannot create tissue, such cures are evidently beyond their power. Cancer that remits, with healing resulting over time from the recuperative powers of the body, would not be conclusive.

After a positive finding at the local level, the case is sent to Rome where it goes though the same two-stop process with new scientific and theological experts.

I know of no such rigor being applied to claims of miracles outside the Catholic Chuch.




post reply view bevrice's threads
Apr 6, 2007 @ 9:04 AM Medically documented Miracles

12knots

Posts: 6,400 Science is the miracle maker.

this last little 12 knots has to kick in this irrelevant rejoinder that means nothing "science is the miracle maker" what? I thought atheists ay there aer no miracles. now they think scinece is a miracle what?

these people are criminals. they should be in jail for crimes against reason. They don't even have the guts to look at the evidence.

Atheists psycholgoical Motive to Deny Evidence.

Atheists have a psychological motive to deny evidence for God. Whatever personal biases lead them to become atheists also lead them to struggle agaisnt arguments for God because to acknowledge that means they would have to give up whatever they are hanging on to that led them to deny God in the first place.

This defense mechanism of ruling out proofs is never more observed than in the arguments bout miracles. Here the atheist says "there can be no proof of miracles because any claim of miracle is primiative and violates the prohabition on usign -God did it--as an explaination. thus:

(1)  There can never be any kind of evidence for miracles.

Then the second part of this ttwo step dance comes into paly:

(2) There is not proof for the truth of belief because there's no evidence for miracles.


But wait, they just loaded things up so that any evidence for miracles must auotmatically been understood as wrong, then use the lack of proof as an argument agains the truth content of religion. But by that defition God could be working mireacles all the tmie we just can't ackoweldge it. Anytime you say "God did it" you are violating some little hidden unthoughtout rule they have. Let's look at this and see it clealry in the work of one "Eelectricsketpic" on carm.

This exchange was  preceded by presentation of my miracles evidence:

Lourdes

Protestant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElectricSkeptic No, we don't. Sorry, but remissions and cures for reasons we don't know do not qualify as miracles. They qualify as remissions and cures for reasons we don't know. I know you need to assume they are miracles - sorry, but that assumption does not make them so. Then you better get out the rest of the iceberg.

 Meta:

yea they have to. The idea that there's some official stamp called "miracle" that would just be so obvious science would have to agree to it and it could never be confused with anything is just silly and childish mythology. it does not exist.

there is no way to determine the difference in something we don't know and a miracle. that's just not the case. Science is a social constrict. The universe does not come with little labels on all natural phenomena that tell us what to think about it.

Naturalism is a paradigm. the paradigm is shifting. Paradigms will do that eventually.

Now what you say is quite false and quick wrong and unthoughtful out.

(1) Remission is not when something vanishes without a trace over night. Most remissions fail and most remissions are slow and leave traces of the problem. When all the symptoms vanish over night that is not remission. not it. not at all.

Charles Anne was dying, he grew a new pair of lungs over night. One day he had an advanced for of TB his lungs were black and ravaged and the very next day they were bran new no trace of any problem. that is not remission!

remission doesn't work that way.

(2) IF we don't know what something is and the only thing we can correlate with it is religious belief, that's a good reason to call it a miracle.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElectricSkeptic No, they don't have to. The idea that any occurrence we can't explain just gets stamped 'miracle' is just silly and childish mythology.

Meta:no one said that. I did not argue that anything we can't explain is a miracle. There has to be a connecting link, but the rules of Lourdes has that link all the Lourdes miracles have the link.

ElectricSkeptic

Sorry, it might satisfy you to say "we don't know, therefore goddidit" - it doesn't satisfy anyone else without a desparate need for miracles to happen.

Meta:

you are setting up a sitaution in which there could never be be proof of any kind and then you want to say "see there's no proof." That's because you nixed the possiblity of ever having it.

the Lourdes rules are well thought out to provide a clear warrant for belief that a miracle has happened. of course you need to study some philosophy and stop the bull and propaganda crap that just biases things for the favor of your pet ideology. Do some real epistemology for a change.

the connecting links are there. you are afraid to investigate becasue what it would mean if God is proved. you have a clearly psychological bias against ever seeing anything as proof.

Meta: Naturism is a paradigm

Quote:

Yeah, sure. So you say.

Meta:not an argument.

Actually what this means is he has never heard of Thomas Kuhn. So we are dealing with someone here who doesn't really know the philosophy of science. Trying to wield scientific thinking as a weapon against faith and not well read enough on the issues of science to understand it's relation to knowledge.

Quote:Electricskeptic

No, it's quite true and quite right and thought out.

Meta:no it's missing the connecting link idea.

Very crucial point becuase Lourdes committee doesn't just say "O here's a good outcome God must have done it." Or even "we can't explain it God must have done it" there has to be a connection to God or to faith in some way. It has to be the result of something prayed for in a short period of time for example. There has to be religious affects involved with it. For example maybe the patient saw a vision of the saint while praying. The time frame is crucial and that is reflected in the rules. So it is step up where there is a rational warrant for connecting the events to the divine.

Quote:Electrickskeptic

Actually you are wrong. From http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic....com/remission, various definitions: Remission: - Abatement or subsiding of the symptoms of a disease. - the partial or complete disappearance of the clinical and subjective characteristics of a chronic or malignant disease.

Meta:

"partial" what does partial mean, ever think of that? where in that little mock up of an excuse for a definition does it say that it goes away over niht with no trace at all that it was ever there?

the Lourdes rules are desgned by medical expetrs, the best in Europe and they design it specifically to weed out remissions. I have talked to medical committee people and other doctors and you are wrong wrogn wrong. you are paliln wrong. you are purposely biasing the ansserni a siplistic way to avoid the fat tha no remissio;n ever goes away over night.

growing back a new pair of lungs is not remmission hat's foolish. if we thought about it the way you are no on would have any miracles. anything that onpe would call a miracle you will automatically nix on the grounds that it can't be explained with that term not ever ever ever for any reason becuase do so is to say "God did it." so you hvae it fixed up where God can't ever be credited with it even if he does do it.

If you Jesus come out of the tomb you are say "it's the first natural remission from death ever in human hsitory but you can't God did it!"

says complete but does not give a time frame. The time frame would be crucial and the rules at Lourdes are designed to take that into acocunt.

Quote:Electricskeptic

Not a word about being 'slow' or 'leaving traces of the problem'. In other words, you're wrong.

Meta:yea there is, what you think "partial" means?

show me an example of a guy growing back lungs from advanced tb over night with no trace of any problem ever being there and the doctors saying it happens it is no big deal?

I know or a fact form talking to doctors that is stupidly absurd no doctor would ever say that. I don't care how you twist simple little definition that was not written to answer this issue, but it's not valid.

Quote:Electricskpetic

Sorry, but that is indeed remission. Check a medical dictionary. It would also qualify as a "cure for reasons we don't know", which I also specified in my post.

Meta

no you show me an example of lungs growing back over night.


don't you see the way you have it rigged up there cannot ever miracles? You have errassed the category of miracle form reality then you want to blame religion or not having them!

Quote:Electricskeptic

Umm...the whole 'unexplained' bit means that we don't know how it works.

Meta:we don't' know how it works! We don't know **** form shinola. We are just getting started we are not the big godlike beings atheism tells you scientists are. As an atheist you have learned to worship science and to see scientists as gods in which lab coats and they are really just blind naked apes groping in the dark.

Quote:Electricskeptic

That's the type of thinking that led primitive man to think thunder was Thor rattling his hammer. Sorry, but "we don't know" is not a synonym for "goddidit".

Meta:no it' snot becuase they (meaning primitive religious people) didn't set up rules to test the outcome by. When we use the reules science gives us it proves miracles happen. It's proved it countless times. I just showed you 65 examples.

but you can't accept that because it means you are going to hell (in the fundie thinking which you dread and your life is motivated to keeping at bay). so that means you can't ever seek the truth because to acknowledge the truth means you have to give something up.

so you have contributed this simplistic little situation where no evidence can ever admitted to be for miracles. Sterno type religion as primitive and so forth so anything that counts for religion is primitive and can't be taken seriously, and all you are really doing is just setting up a complex field of biases as a self dense mechanism to protect yourself from having to give up the will to God.

your logic is abysmal. Because you are aruging from incredulity "I refuse to believe it so it can't be true."

They are so terrified of being primitive and believing mythology (which they don't understand anyway) that they are willing to set up the most transparent system of biases and ideology and to close off free thinking which they claim to love. Is it any wonder atheism is so shallow? I really don't see who would want to identify with such shallow nonsense..


one little final twist to the story. Antother little arogant hate group minon who had come on a few days ago with the typical arrogant "i'm here to sluoghter the stupid Christians" attitude, and was promptly reduced to craying and whining. "you are not smarter than me! you are not! you are not!"

He tries an age old West Texas Debater's poly:

Originally Posted by otto

I forget where I read it, but this is a classic Pseudoscience trick: When you are losing your argument, or want to shout down the opposition, inundate the conversation with excessive information so the other person has to take excessive time and energy to read through it and check all claims. Meanwhile, the you can sit back and keep saying "but you didn't respond to all my points".

If the quote wasn't you, it had your name on it (Joe Hinman). You can understand my confusion.

Meta:

Your inability to handle a large flow of data is a bad debater's tick. blame big words, logic you have not studied, names you have not read, ideas you haven't been exposed to yet as tricks. make it out that the proficient researcher is pulling a fast one that way the fact that you are outgunned on evidence and can't deny the logic is missed.

that way winning the debate becomes a liability. It would be better to lose the debate that's the way to win.

It's called "West Texas Debater's ploy" because in the old days West Texas has the worst debate in Texas. They were legendary for being dumb and out of it  and unable to keep up the fast pace of presentation (meaning they couldn't talk fast--in them thar days back in high school debate that was a real big deal).  Going to a tournement in West Texas was considered a waste of a weekend.

They could come to our tournaments be totally humiliated becuase they would present about one card for every 10 that we read. Then they would go "he's talking fast and reading lot o evidence and I can't keep but it's a trick." They are basically saying "the fact that he's a better debater by modern debate standards is just a trick, the truth I'm really winning because I can't keep up."

Now the truth is I really think that aspect of debate is stupid. We should be able to slow down and dwell on a price of evidence until we really understand what it's doing there. But this is a message board. We are not talking, so there's no pressure to talk fast here. the truth is this guy doesn't' want to go to the trouble of researching the arguments he wants to ignore them becuase he doesn't care about truth anyway.

For Rex: Do Atheists Want Answers?

Remember yesterday I gave the example of DP from CARM board who come on with an insulting air and asked a lot of loaded Questions. Then Rex got because I didn't treat the loaded question like serious inquirrires and answer them. That's because the purpose of this blog is not to disprove the atheist world view or answer their questions ( I do that on the other blog: Metacrock's Blog). The purpose of this blog is to show that there is such a thing as hate group atheism.

But meanwhile back on CARM DP comes back and asked why I think his questions are loaded. Here's what I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock your questions are loaded. how hard is that to understand? take two examples: you: Why do they accept these unlikely events as fact and all other religious claims as false? Look at the way you describe it?you might as well say "why do you believe these false ideas?" how could possibly pretend you want a real answer when it clear your mind is made up you see things a certain way and you don't care what anyone says. what answer could possibly change your mind? It's not even certain that seeing an miracle change your mind. you What evidence is there that God actually communicated with these individuals other than their own written word? gee I just don't know. We have the long elaborate arguments about evidence of the resurrection. but no that's no good because if it's written it can't be true, but when it's oral it can't be true either. so it can't be true ever not any time. what have i been talking about on these 300 studies fora bout four years now? I've talked about them and posted them and put up links to the bibs over and over again no one has looked up a single study. Its' so obvious you have no intention at all of listening to any answers. look that Rorian's approach to God arugments. the fact that he can't beat one just doesn't' come into it. they must be wrong a prori it doesn't matter that they are logic and he can't beat them. now atheist have gotten to where they argue that just be arguments in themselves proves they are wrong . so that winning a God argument proves that there is no God because you have to argue about it. that's hard core narrow minded. you-get-answers-every-single-day! you never accept them, you pretend they don't mean anything, you usually can't beat them and you proclaim victory over them a priori just because they come to conclusions you don't want and then go on your saying "how can they believe these things!" it's because you answer the arguments! Its' more than obvious you want answers. It's so bleeding totally obvious.

 Then here is his response:

I hope you didn't spend too much time on this because after reading the first sentence I skipped the rest.

Yea he was so serious about those questions! He was really interested in searching for truth. That's why when I give two examples as answers to a question he asked he doesn't even bother to read them and then runs away. Isn't this just an admission on his part that his questions were loaded? I can give you many many other examples of times when I've presented good solid evidence and they refuse to even consider it. One such example is the lungs of Charles Anne. I have evidence from the Catholic saint making committee, a young seminarian in the early 1920's had a form of TB that's much like black lung. He was on the verge of death. He was prayed for by someone who prayed to St.Teresa of Lenoux and that put her over the top as a saint, because the next morning the man' lungs were like new. This is proved by Xrays (they did have xrays in the early 20s, they were just coming into wide scale use).

First the atheists refused to accept that the Xrays even exist. I emailed a member of the medical committee who said they did. Then the refused to believe that they show that because I don't have the Xrays myself. they also complained because I used evidence from a devotional site dedicated to taht saint. they said anyone who would put up a site to that saint would be crazy and fanatical and would just make things up. But I argued that they can't do that because the medical committee documents it and this person with his own site can't make up what the evidence because it' has to be officially accepted by the committee. Then of course some of them argued that well the committee is made up of religious people, and thus they are lying. But that's just poisoning the well, no evidence ever be gathered because anything that supports religious view is automatically a lie then why ask  for evidence?

Then the issue became I don't have the evidence in my home. they want me to actually have the medical xrays myself at home and send them to them. So is that fair? Do you think I'm a library or something? how could I get them? Unless they hold them in their hands, that's so nutsie! Someone I know who used to be an atheist and whose main occupation in life was arguing with creationists pointed out to me that those atheists were arguing just the way creationists do! then I realized these guys are just ideologues, they are nothing more than fundies themselves! That's when I coined the term "Dawkies" (Dawkamentalist).

Even so, I still hate to see a reader of my blog in such a dither. Rex really wants to see those answers so I gess there are those who do actually want answers, or they feel they do. I can't supposse that they are all the same. So I will give Rex some answers on those questions.

I'll put them up tomorrow.