Spiderman
Veteran Member
I didn't believe in God and hated Religion....Call it whatever you like...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How hard do you have to try to be an atheist?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I've done so many times
Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia
Infallible Catholic: Miraculous Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Miracle Hunter: Lourdes - List of Approved Miracles
The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. They use skeptics on the committees, the rules are geared to control for remission. They screen our remission. They are required to use only the best medical evidence, to consult the doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors. They do examine the patients. It does have to be proven that the people were sick beforehand! they will only choose a case when they cannot find a naturalistic explaination.
Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracel acceptence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spiderman
Veteran Member
We find fossils records but we see no evidence of an chimp that is in the process of mutating and transitioning into a human in any creature alive in the 21th century.Is it hard for you to not believe in Leprechauns or Bigfoot?
The human and chimp lineages split about 5 to 8 million years ago, so it isn't that surprising that we haven't seen much relative change over the last few thousand years. A thousand years is just 0.02% of the total amount of time since those lineages split.
What we do see is that every individual is born with mutations, and that mutations continue to accumulate in every population alive today. There is nothing stopping these mutations from accumulating and producing change.
Also, not every lineage is under selective pressure for increased intelligence.
We find half human, half apes in the fossil record:
But it was easy to accept creationism even though it lacks any evidence whatsoever?
A Supernatural force may have worked with scientific mechanisms millions of years ago to turn an ape into a human being. These fossil records do not in any way demonstrate that there is no creator working with the laws of Science to create new species.
Last edited by a moderator:
ecco
Veteran Member
Nice try at evasion. However, I can keep track of a conversation...
I didn't ask why you "don't believe science when it starts suggesting...".
I asked why you singled out evolution as being atheistic because "they teach that no intelligent guiding force was involved". It's a simple question.
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco
Please stop stating or even suggesting that you were ever an atheist.
Atheism doesn't come from anger. Atheism comes from enlightenment. Your comment doesn't sound like you were enlightened by anything.
ecco
Veteran Member
No, you haven't. I went to your Lourdes site. I read it. I stated I doubted you had read it. I pointed out that there was not one single verifiable medical report. You completely ignored my post. Now you flat out lie by saying "I've done so many times". Do you really think no one notices? With every post you are just making yourself look worse and worse. You're giving fundies a bad rep.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I don't think evolution is atheistic...some people use it to make an atheistic argument
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I'm not a fundie and that has been made obvious by the many times I've said the Bible is stupid. Speaking of foolish....
The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. They use skeptics on the committees, the rules are geared to control for remission. They screen our remission. They are required to use only the best medical evidence, to consult the doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors. "They do examine the patients. It does have to be proven that the people were sick beforehand! they will only choose a case when they cannot find a naturalistic explaination."
Ever since the period of the apparitions, medicine has played a crucial role. First of all, as far as Bernadette was concerned, when Dr. Dozous, the Lourdes physician, detected she was physically healthy and mentally sane, and subsequently with respect to the first people who had benefited from the blessing of a recovery."
"But the number of healed people continued to grow tremendously, and it was therefore necessary to consider, in each on of these event, the subjective and objective elements."
Establishment of Rules
"Dr.Dozous had recorded more than a hundred cases in the year 1858 only, and Canon Bertrin over 4000 statements of recovery between 1858 and 1914. Ever since 1859, Prof.Vergez, an associate of the Montpellier Faculty of Medicine, had been put in charge of a scrupulous scientific control of recoveries. Dr. De Saint-Maclou succeeded him in 1883, year in which he established the Bureau Médical, in its official and permanent organisation. Dr. Boissarie, another major personality in Lourdes, succeed the latter, upon his death in 1891, and maintained the position until the First World War."
I will skip much of the historical development of modern rules. But it is compelx and interesting, you can read more about it thorugh the link of the original Balzaretti article above.
THE CHURCHÂ’S CRITERIA
Balzaretti again:
From: De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione
(liber IV, Cap. VIII, no. 2),
with commentaries up to the end of the chapter -
Author: Cardinal Prospero Lambertini,
future Pope Benedict XIV, 1734.
1.“ Primum est, ut morbus sit gravis, et vel impossibilis, vel curatu difficilis ” – Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat.
2.“ Secundum, ut morbus, qui depellitur, non sit in ultima parte status, ita ut non multo post declinare debeat ” – Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery.
3.“ Tertium, ut nulla fuerint adhibita medicamenta, vel, si fuerint adhibita, certum sit, ea non profuisse ” – Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained.
4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.
5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ” – Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial.
6.“ Sextum, ut nulla notatu digna evacuatio, seu crisis praecedat temporibus debitis, et cum causa; si enim ita accidat, tunc vero prodigiosa sanatio dicenda non erit, sed vel ex toto, vel ex parte naturalis ” Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural.
7.“ Ultimum, ut sublatus morbus non redeat ” – Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear.
Ballzaretti:
"In 1948 Mgr.Théas, Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, decided to lay down supplementary rules and indications, which were even clearer and more logic in terms of recovery acknowledgement, for the medical practitioners of the Acknowledgement Office, taking into account three basic criteria: a) Was there really a disease? b) Is there a real recovery? c) Is there a natural explanation for this recovery? At the same time, while medicine became scientific, under the chairmanship of Prof."
"Leuret, the National Medical Committee was established in 1947, made up by university specialists, in order for a more rigorous and independent control to better guarantee the authenticity of the conclusions. This committee became International (LIMC) in 1954, thus acquiring even greater authority and a universal dimensions. At present, the Lourdes International Medical Committee (LIMC) is based in Paris, and is chaired by Mgr. Jacques Perrier, Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, and by Mgr. Jean-Luis Armand-Laroche from Paris; it is made up by 25 members, including luminaries of international renown, university professors and particularly experienced and qualified medical practitioners, from different countries worldwide.
Balzaretti with same members of Lourdes International Medical Committee (LIMC)
Italy is represented by three members; in addition to the undersigned, LIMC members include Prof. Fausto Santeusanio, Director of the Chair of Endocrinology at Perugia University, and Prof.Graziano Pretto, Director of the Otolaryngology Department of the Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital in San Giovanni Rotondo. Each complete medical file, accurately drawn up by the medical practitioner in charge of the competent Medical Service, after having been checked and accepted by the Bureau Médical, currently chaired by Dott. Patrick Theiller, is submitted to the LIMC, which meets in Paris or Lourdes once a year.
Just like a court of appeal, the LIMC confirma or invalidates the position taken by the Bureau Médical in the “first instance”, after having carefully examined and evaluated the various files and, should this be required, it can request the advice or opinion of highly qualified external experts. The LIMC is currently analysing two very interesting cases, which may lead to major developments. In order to take into account the acknowledgement of a recovery, the premises of the following two fundamental aspects (which however need to be carefully distinguished) need to exist: 1. The abnormal fact: the phenomenon of recovery itself, which is characterised by its being absolutely unexpected and unexplainable, compared to ordinary medical predictions and to scientific literature data, and which will be subject to an in-depth medical analysis; 2. The sign: which leads to the belief of a special intervention by God, by intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes; this intervention has to be acknowledged by the Church, based on the report of the cured person. But at this stage, we also need to point out: a) The definition of miracle: this is an extraordinary and exceptional event, which cannot be explained through today’s scientific knowledge; b) The features of a miracle: this is a sudden or exceptionally rapid event, with permanent effects and no relapses, which can be assessed through a scientific and interdisciplinary methodology involving biology, forensic medicine, theology, etc. c) The context in which the miracle occurs: historic age, documentation and iconography, taking place within catholic religion and not other religious beliefs and/or cultures, etc.; d) The authority proclaiming the miracle: after the favourable judgement passed by the CMIL (Comité Médical International de Lourdes), this is the ecclesiastic ordinary of the diocese of origin or another authoritative representative of the Church.
After 1977, following the proposal put forward by Mgr. Donze (who has recently died) to reword the rules laid down by Benedict XIV in the light of nowadays’ scientific and technological innovations, a 16 query scheme prepared by the LIMC was laid down; among other things, this introduced the need to rule out any psychopathic component, as well as any other subjective pathologic statea or manifestationa (which are therefore not verifiable), hence only taking into account the recovery acknowledgements relating to serious and provable affections, the only ones that could be deemed as “scientifically inexplicable”. And therefore, in this case it will be possible to close the medical report supporting a “certain and medically unexplainable” recovery, only when:
1) The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;
2) The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;
3) The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;
4) The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself. These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.
They undoubtedly and straightforwardly set out the standard features of an unexpected recovery and have actually made it impossible to put forward any objection to any form of lack of scientific exactitude on the part of the medical practitioners belonging to the Bureau and to the LIMC. The rigour of the Lourdes medical practitioners, whose scrupulousness throughout the years has been centering on the suddenness of recoveries, on the relative effectiveness of the therapies administered, on the objective evidence of the disease found, or on the shorter or longer length of the monitoring period (depending on the disease), has always been exemplary and appreciated by all the Diocesan Canonical Committees that have been called to express their opinion.
Compliance to such criteria has corroborated the seriousness and objectivity of the former Bureau des Constatations and, today, it continues to guide the Comité Médical International de Lourdes, whose conclusions have always represented an indispensable expert’s piece of evidence generating and motivating any further canonical judgements required to acknowledge the real Miracles amongst the thousands of recoveries ascribed to the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes.
Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracel acceptence.
But I guess the whole medical bureau that certifies that these miracles were complete healings that lacked any scientific or medical explanation are all lying.
Here is a list of people cured:
LOURDES1
But of course you will dismiss it all...you haven't debunked anything...You aren't the Doctors that have written about how baffled they were by various healings that defied the laws of science and medicine. I'll take their word over yours
ecco
Veteran Member
You don't believe in ToE. So how can you think it is or it isn't atheistic?
Name "some people". Show how they used it to make an atheistic argument.
Furthermore, if some people did use ToE to make an atheistic argument, they weren't too bright.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
No need to name people. I'm sure you are not that ignorant, and have heard people use the theory of evolution as a basis for saying there is no God.
I see you're just playing games, so I'm done with you. Have a great day! It's been fun!
Ibni Abbas
Member
I found that the analogy to answer the question :
You are not intact while you are not : Tsalaf AS or Muslim AS .
You are not intact while you are not : Tsalaf AS or Muslim AS .
All I would say on the matter is that, inasmuch as the several mechanisms of biological evolution are pretty well understood, demonstrated and predictive, the need for magical or supernatural pleading is unnecessary.No need to name people. I'm sure you are not that ignorant, and have heard people use the theory of evolution as a basis for saying there is no God.
ecco
Veteran Member
Typical fundie.No need to name people. I'm sure you are not that ignorant, and have heard people use the theory of evolution as a basis for saying there is no God.
I see you're just playing games, so I'm done with you. Have a great day! It's been fun!
You make baseless assertions
You're asked to provide evidence for your baseless assertions.
You cannot, so you post a smiley face and say you don't want to discuss it further.
Typical fundie.
I don't recall my physics teacher ever invoking a deity if I'm honest.
Umm why would a chimp be in the process of turning into a human? They split from us a while back and went a different direction. They'd have to make a rather awkward u turn to make that happen. Even God would be rather taken aback if that happened in biology.
And humans are apes. A subspecies at that.
We're a hominid (or whatever fancy term they've updated to.)
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Chimps changing into humans would falsify the theory of evolution. It appears that you don't understand the very theory you reject. No living species should evolve into another living species. That's not how it works.
Also, you have not shown that chimps or any other species are not changing into another species. You simply assert it.
Where is the evidence that a supernatural force did act on past populations? Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as the Hitch was famous for saying.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
I have heard of every theory in science being used to dismiss the existence of deities. I'm not one of those people, but it is best to recognize that other people are pointing to science as a whole, not just evolution.
Is there a scientific theory you accept? Germ theory? Atomic theory? Theory of gravity? Where in those theories do we find mention of God? In fact, when has God ever been a verified and evidenced part of any natural process in the universe? It would seem that you have no reason for singling evolution out.