CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting











Skeppie challenges me to show him one miracle.

Me: 65 officially validated at Lourdes
Skepie: By the church. Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me a miracle that has been observed by someone who isn't under the influence.

Now we begin the game of a thousand qualifications, he didn't want just one miracle; turns out he wants it to be perfect. Okay, let's start the haggling. But is there anyone out there who for a minute believes that he will ever be satisfied no matter how may qualifications I meet? But he's not question begging he's just assertive that because he's right no evidence can count against his position.

Supernatural effects.

What has been said so far implies that the supernatural is not a juxtaposed realm that has to break in upon the natural, but something that works within the natural to draw nature to a higher level, Ontologically, this is the “ground and end” of the natural. There might also be “supernatural effects,” however, as a result of nature being drawn to the level of the supernatural. These are effects that nature cannot produce by herself unaided. These effects we label “miracles.”[1]  Of course “miracle” is a very controversial idea, by virtue of the fact that it is such a slap in the face to our understanding of what can happen. The truth of it is that the concept of “miracle” is not all that coherent; it’s not only hard to prove, but it includes a built-in epistemological gap that can’t be traversed except by means of a judgment. What that means is, if one takes sides on the issue of miracles, it has to be a question of which side of an ideological split one comes down upon. It’s not a matter of factual disproof or proof. Again, the issue that “there is no proof” is misleading. The mantra of reductionism that “there is no scientific proof for miracles or the supernatural” is misleading, because there’s no reason to assume there could be the kind of evidence reductionists are seeking. On the other hand, there is evidence, and it is fairly persuasive—but also non-conclusive.

The best evidence for miraculous healing is found in Catholic circles (because of their evidence-gathering traditions). The Roman Catholic Church has two great centers of healing evidence; they run an evidential documentation process that is well thought out and is the best in the world. One center is for saint-making miracles, miracles that justify canonization of individuals as saints. The other is for miracles connected to the shrine to the Virgin Mary at Lourdes. Lourdes is probably a bit more respectable scientifically, because they are free from the pressure of making people saints. For both, the rules are the same and the committee members are the same. The rules are strict and scientific, contrary to both atheist propaganda and popular belief. Yet there are problems which I will discuss.
First, let’s understand the evidential process. I will speak mainly of Lourdes for brevity’s sake. The shrine was established to commemorate visions of a young French peasant girl named Bernadette, who saw a woman dressed in white appear to her in radiant light, and after several such visions, a spring popped up; the application of water from that spring is said to produce miracles. A committee was established to investigate the veracity of the claims. Rules were laid down to govern the process. In the period before the committee and the rules, there were several thousand claims of miracles that were not investigated rigorously. Since that time there have been only 67 miracles that are officially pronounced to be so by the Church. Yet there are about 7000 cases that are so incredible that they would seem to qualify, but the rules are so strict that technicalities of documentation prevent them being officially accepted. These are called “remarkable cases.” In 2006, amid some controversy, the Church relaxed the rules, because doctors were increasingly reluctant to rule anything miraculous— but now it does not use the term “miracle,” only the term “remarkable” for these cases. In 2011 a certain Serge François, 56, was the first case pronounced “remarkable” since the relaxing of rules.[2]
It’s hard to find real scientific or scholarly work on Lourdes, because anything critical would be stepping on the Church’s toes, and anything supportive would be taken as propaganda. The ideological climate in scientific circles prevents a fair treatment there, and the honest, critical nature of doing good science would probably be perceived as hostile by the faithful and the committee. Thus, a real critical view (in the best sense of the word) is not possible. This leaves the topic in the province of popular journalism. My argument is, therefore, not that any of these miracles is proved scientifically, but that the evidential process, closed and problematic though it may be, raises questions that are worth asking and promises the possibility of documenting real miracles.
There are several stages to the process. The committee (which is completely independent of the Church) creates its findings according to scientific documentation. They obtain all the diagnostic material, such as x-rays and EKGs, from the patient’s doctor; they examine the patient to see if they can verify that the condition of sickness existed, that it no longer exits, and that it ceased suddenly. The rules are set up in such a way as to control for diseases that have a high remission rate. They do use skeptics on the committee. I have seen arguments that the people reporting miraculous healings were never diagnosed, but the rules require that they must be. There has to be an accounting to indicate that they were diagnosed, and the material obtained has to be carefully studied.

Criteria according to the rules

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.[3]

After 1977 these rules were added:

  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. [4]

The committee

The Committee includes distinguished medical experts such as Franco Balzaretti and François-Bernard Michel. Michel is also a member and vice President of the National Academy of Medicine in France.[5] The process of verification is long and complex. The church theologians give the final say about a case being deemed a “miracle” (or nowadays a “remarkable” case), because that has to square with theology. The data is given first to the medical committee, which works independently, and the Church takes no hand in what is passed on to them and what is not.

Sample cases

Brother Schwager Léo
30 April 1952
age 28; Fribourg, Switzerland
multiple sclerosis for five years; recognized by the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland on 18 December 1960
Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
15 May 1952
age 34; Bouille-Loretz, France
multiple sclerosis for three years; recognized by the diocese of Poitiers, France on 16 July 1956

Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre
21 September 1954
age 26; Carmaux, France
Budd-Chiari disease (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis); recognized by the diocese of Albi on 31 May 1963
Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
5 June 1958
age 27; Patti, Italy
Tuberculous, osteo-arthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right lower limb; recognized by the diocese of Messine, Italy on 26 May 1965
Juliette Tamburini
17 July 1959
age 22; Marseilles, France
femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years; recognized by the diocese of Marseille, France on 11 May 1965
Vittorio Micheli
1 June 1963
age 23; Scurelle, Italy
Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk. By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy on 26 May 1976.
Serge Perrin
1 May 1970
age 41; Lion D'Angers, France
Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache, impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in April 1970, his symptoms became worse, and he was near death on 30 April. Wheeled to the Basilica for the Ceremony the next morning, he felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was able to walk unaided. First person cured during the Ceremony of the Anointing of the Sick. Recognized by the diocese of Angers, France on 17 June 1978.
Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
24 December 1976
age 12; Paterno, Italy
Ewing's Sarcoma of right knee; recognized by the diocese of Catania, Italy on 28 June 1989
Jean-Pierre Bély
9 October 1987
age 51; French
multiple sclerosis; recognized by the diocese of Angoulême on 9 February 1999 [6]

There are independent verifications of the process or incidents that may give us insight into workings of the committee. This is not scientific. The websites that talk about the cures are not scientific. The dispensing of information by the committee, regardless of how honest or good, is not science, because the process is not open enough. The committee may have tried to make the process very transparent, but it’s still not being performed by academic sources. The people involved in it have academic credentials, but they are part of a process that is overall under the sway of non-academic concerns. Yet procedures have been put in place to assure an impartial outcome.

Just how limiting the lack of scientific protocol is will be discussed. First, the independent verifications need to be understood. If the Vatican was only interested in “proving” miracles, they have 7000 remarkable cases to choose from. These “remarkable cases” are cases that are “amazing” enough and well enough documented that they could be declared miracles, but they won’t be because some technical problem in the documentation prevents them passing muster. That’s why there are only 67 cases called “miraculous,” although they have been working on this since the 1880s. It’s not because they don’t have the cases; they are just too picky.

Reviews and analysis of the Lourdes phenomenon

Jacalyn Duffin is an important diagnostician and medical researcher. She was asked to study a case involving a kind of cancer. She did not know who the client was. She assumed the woman was dead by that time due to the progression of the case, then was stunned to find that the woman was alive and that she was being put forward as a miracle at Lourdes. The independent verification process here uses a double blind technique, in that the researcher didn’t know she was studying an alleged miracle and the committee didn’t know who got the case to study. The process does involve follow-up and investigation using top-level medical research. Duffin was so taken with the fact that her work would be in the Vatican archives that she got permission to study the medical records in the archives. What resulted was her book: Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing.[7]   Duffin is a fine historian of medicine (see endnote for her credentials). Although it only scratches the surface of the Vatican’s investigation processes in the wealth of documents in its archives, this book is ground-breaking. Duffin examined 1,400 miracles found in the Vatican archives. She found that the doctor’s records were complete and meticulous. The doctors were skeptical. Many of the cases were resurrections, and many could not be explained. Some were mistakes, and some leave room for doubt.

One of the major problems she uncovered was the differences in the understanding of medicine in different eras. Many of the alleged complaints are not taken seriously any more. The book is written in a scholarly fashion, although accessible to the layman. It has a wealth of information in the form of charts, graphs, and tables. It traces the rise and decline of various miracles as their diseases become medically known or forgotten. For instance, there are no more documented healings from "dropsy" (swelling of body tissues), because it's not considered a separate disease anymore. But Duffin clearly finds believable the doctors’ reports and independent verifications of a great many cases.

In a 2012 article entitled “The Lourdes Medical Cures Revisited,” Bernard François, Ester M. Sternberg and Elizabeth Fee provide something closer to a scientific appraisal.[8] They studied 411 patients cured in 1909-14 and thoroughly reviewed 25 cures acknowledged between 1927 and 1976. By “acknowledged” they mean cures that were officially declared “miracles” by the church.[9]  The 411 cures between 1909 and 1914 are part of the era known as “the golden age of Lourdes.” This was the time when Lourdes’ popularity was at its height, the medical committee was functioning smoothly with new rules, and crowds were pouring in. In earlier days, right after the visions began, there were many claims of miracles that went unrecorded, or that could not hold up to scrutiny, or that weren’t recorded in a systematic fashion. This state of affairs evolved through the late nineteenth century with the imposition of rules and the creation of the medical board. Since the 1970’s the official “miracles” and the crowds have decreased significantly. As the article puts it, “[T]he Lourdes mystique may have lost some of its momentum. It has been suggested that today's pilgrims as a whole have little in common with nineteenth-century believers….”

According to the article, data on the early period is found in the archives of the sanctuary of Notre Dame of Lourdes (April 1868-June 1944), which provide mainly unsubstantiated and anecdotal evidence. The authors also used Ruth Harris’s scholarly work Lourdes, Body and Spirit in the Secular Age. For the period 1885-1914 they used Annales of Notre Dame de Lourdes, Vol. 17-47, George Bertirins’ Historie Critique Des Evenments de Lourdes, and a host of other materials.[10] The authors set out to determine if Lourdes cures really were cures. Their working methodology for this task was to evaluate the nature of the disease and then to assess the nature of the diagnostic criteria and evidence used for deciding that cure had occurred. The criteria improved over the years as diagnostic ability improved. Their conclusion? “[T]he Lourdes phenomenon, extraordinary in many respects, still awaits scientific explanation.”[11] 

Speaking of the “golden age” (1890-1915), François and his colleagues write, “Led by a talented physician… the Medical Bureau is said to have improved its method and gained a reputation for excellence, but it faced a daunting task…150,000 pilgrims a year.”[12] Yet some of the cures of that era were deemed “remarkable,” such as those of Marie Lebranchu and Marie Lemarchand, cured of pulmonary tuberculosis, who attended Lourdes with the famous atheist writer Emile Zola; Gabriel Gargam, cured of post traumatic paraplegia in 1901 and still living in 1953 at the age of 82; and several others.[13]  Prior to the cures, patents were described as being in decline or in an “alarming state of health.” “Patients confined to bed for years would stand and walk, regain their weight, resume their prior activity… cured patients were evaluated again one year later... they were found healthy and as far as we know, the recoveries stood the test of time.”[14]  The researchers do note that modern researchers reading the accounts can sense the neurotic nature of some symptoms. There were obvious cases of hysteria. But there were also cases with evidence of anatomical abnormalities. “Scores of visiting physicians witnessed the disappearance of macroscopic lesions, easy to identify such as external tumors, uterine fibromas, open wounds, and suppurative or fecal fistulae.”[15] 
The cures were said to be instantaneous in 59 percent of 382 cases for which they had adequate records; this was all within the golden age period.[16] During the golden age there were also strange, spontaneous healings away from the actual shrine, such as at a breakfast table, during a procession, or in the hospital ward in the town.[17]  Apparently it was WWII that put the kybosh on the golden age. The committee changed leadership many times, and doctors were scarce due to the war.[18] 1947-2006 was marked by improved diagnostics, new young physicians, and more careful attitudes. They created an international committee designed to review the work of the Bureau.[19]  There were 25 patients cured and their cures analyzed from this period. The article’s authors had misgivings about some of these cases; but they acknowledge that “[s]pontaneous remissions of diseases, especially of cancers, do not measure up to the speed, power, and variety of the Lourdes cures.”[20]  

The authors found that the word “cure” at Lourdes was often misunderstood. Some of the incidents called “cures” were improvements in the state of health. “By cross checking available data we arrived at a rough estimate of medical events acknowledged as ‘cures’ as 4,516, in the period 1858-1976.”[21]  Most of these cures occurred before WWII, and most were based upon what is described as “flimsy evidence.” There was often a prior expectation of miracles, and no follow up afterwards. For that reason the authors found it impossible to assess the number of valid cures before 1947. There has been a decline in the number of cures for the last one hundred years, and the authors list several factors as the reason for this: increasing efficiency of modern medicine (diagnostic equipment and better definitions for the nature of a condition), and the canons of Cardinal Lambertini to qualify a miracle that have actually stood in the way of being able to declare many cases as miracles.

The requirements for these canons are as follows: (a) the disease must be severe, incurable, or difficult to treat; (b) it must not be in a final stage; (c) no curative treatment can have been given; (d) the cure must be instantaneous; (d) the cure must be complete without relapse. One can see that this is so strict (it’s difficult nowadays to find someone who has not sought some other cure before resorting to pilgrimage to Lourdes, for instance), that it’s one of the major reasons there are so few official miracles. There are examples from certain periods where Lambertini canons have not been met but still constitute remarkable cures. In the article’s study of twenty-five cured patients, six were cured of terminally ill diseases, and eight were cured in a matter of days, months or even years; these are sharp departures from the canons. The canons “seem to have been rescinded in 2006-8, when it was obvious they no longer applied to what was observed.”[22] (That’s one thing that makes for the category I’ve spoken of before of the “remarkable case.” There are only 67 official miracles, but 7000 remarkable cases. Those are based upon a modern study of the committee, not part of the François article.) Miracles are not for the Catholic Church on the same level as the sacraments or the creeds, so belief in them is not obligatory.[23]  A parallel is drawn by the author between their work and that of Jacalyn Duffin. The pathological conditions are the same; the proportion of tuberculosis, neurological disorders and GI diseases were distributed in similar fashion; and the manner of the cures were the same.
For the period 1947-76, the article states, “Thirteen patients out of twenty-five... died nineteen to fifty-seven years after the cure and without relapse of the disease. For nine subjects living in 2008, the time elapsed since the cure was ten to fifty-four years.”[24] They found that four cases of multiple sclerosis had remissions of four-year duration, which is equivalent to assumed cure. Four cases of tuberculosis were actually cured, and the speed of the cure was without known equivalent. Two were taken out of the study because key requirements weren’t met. Of twenty-five, the researchers had misgivings about eight.[25] This means that while eight are doubtful and two discarded, seventeen are solidly documented cures. Looking back over the entire history of the phenomenon, the researchers suggest that about one third of the cases involve cures that were not spontaneous but required days or weeks. The researchers also found that there were significant mental factors present, and an atmosphere conducive to healing, but they did not conclude that this could “explain” it all away. It might also be worth pointing out even though they can’t be studied, there’s an “underside” of Lourdes: people who are healed in connection with prayers involving Lourdes or the use of the water away from the shrine, who never report in but send information so that a plaque can be put up. This number has been increasing, and was about ninety-four in 2008. While these cannot really be claimed as cures because they can’t be studied, they suggest the possibility that healings have been, and still are, occurring outside of Lourdes’ official domain.[26]

The François article is extremely thorough, with sound medical and scholarly caution. It takes a critical view of the subject matter and the data. It tallies the kinds of diagnoses and which diseases were the most cured and the most reported. The authors describe a development over time from an early phase of inadequate reporting and uncritical acceptance of cures, to a modern setup which is well regarded and scientific. Modern controversy stems from the declining reports due to more stringent evidence requirements and the fact that many of Lourdes’ modern pilgrims do not report to the Medical Bureau. There is also controversy over relaxing the rules. All of this, and concern to leave religious considerations out of their analysis, lead François et al to speak of “cures” rather than miracles.








Sources

1 I refer to miracles such as healing incurable disease as “supernatural effects,” so that this can be marked as more of an abrupt departure from the norm than the “sense of the numinous.” Yet the sense of the numinous is an effect and could be called “supernatural effect”— but that gives the impression that it’s seen as a miracle and creates confusion. Both really are effects of Supernature, but the experience of God’s presence is more natural and more connected to the natural than healing of incurable disease. I want people to start thinking of religious experience as something that happens within the natural realm rather than in opposition to the natural.
2 Tom Heneghan, “Lourdes Calls a Healing ‘Remarkable,’ Avoiding the Term ‘Miracle.;” FaithWorld, March 25, 2011. online copy URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-catholic-miracle-idUSTRE72R4SK20110328 visited 10/3/12.
3Franco Balzaretti. “The Miracles at Lourdes, Comparing Science and Faith.” Leadership online source, URL: http://www.leadershipmedica.com/scientifico/sciedic02/scientificaing/10balzae/10balzaing.htm visited 10/3/12. 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.
Balzaretti is a member of Lourdes medical committee, Associazione Medici Cattolici Italiani (AMCI)
Membre du Comité Médical International de Lourdes (CMIL). I first saw this material in 2006. There is no date printed on it.
4 Ibid.
5 National Academy of Medicine, Website URL: http://www.academie-medecine.fr/organigramme.cfm?langue=fr visited 10/10/12.
6 “Recognized miraculous cures at Lourdes” Saints, SQPN. Com. website URL: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stb06001.htm visited 10/12/12
This is a partisan website, it’s based upon information supplied by the medical committee. The committee will answer requests to send material. More detailed information about each case can be found on another website: “Our Lady Of Lourdes” http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Lourdes/Lourdes1.htm
7 Jacalyn Duffin, Medical Miracles, Doctors, Saints and Healing. Oxford University Press, USA. 2008.
Jacalyn Duffin, M.D. (Toronto 1974), FRCP(C) (1979), Ph.D. (Sorbonne 1985), is Professor in the Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at Queen's University in Kingston, where she has taught in medicine, philosophy, history, and law for more than twenty years. A practicing hematologist, a historian, a mother and grandmother, she has served as president of both the American Association for the History of Medicine and the Canadian Society for the History of Medicine. She holds a number of awards and honors for research, writing, service, and teaching. She is the author of five books, editor of two anthologies, and has published many research articles. Her most recent book is an analysis of the medical aspects of canonization, Medical Miracles; Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World, Oxford University Press, 2009. It was awarded the Hannah Medal of the Royal Society of Canada.
8 Bernard François et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012. Pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28; all the page numbers given are from pdf. Article may currently be viewed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854941/.
Bernard François is former Professor Emeritus of medicine, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
11Ibid, abstract.
12Ibid, pdf page 8.
13Ibid.
14Ibid, 9.
15Ibid,10.
16iIbid, 12.
17Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid, 13.
20 Ibid.21, 27.
21 Ibid 19.
22 Ibid, 20.
23 Ibid. They cite Catechism of the Catholic Church Part 3 Section 1, Chapter 3 Article 2, Grace 2003.The Catholic believer may reject all ecclesiastical miracles as pious fables and he may reject modern miracles as imagination.
24 Ibid, 23. Mangiapan was president of the Medical Bureau
25 Ibid, 24.

26 Ibid, 25-27.








42 comments:

Now we begin the game of a thousand qualifications, he didn't want just one miracle; turns out he wants it to be perfect. Okay, let's start the haggling. But is there anyone out there who for a minute believes that he will ever be satisfied no matter how may qualifications I meet? But he's not question begging he's just assertive that because he's right no evidence can count against his position.

First, let me say that you can't dispute my argument by putting words in my mouth that I never said, or by falsely presenting my position. The point of my comment was to observe the fact that the only people who claim to witness miracles are those who are "faithful". Skeptics (or people who are not "under the influence" of faith) never get to see these things first-hand. And that's a problem for empiricists.

How can this discrepancy be explained? Maybe God deliberately limits who can see his miraculous workings. But if that's true, then the biblical stories of miracles would have to be re-evaluated in light of this, because it has generally been assumed that miracles were a show of divine power for the purpose of convincing people that it is real. But if the only ones who saw them were already convinced, then they seem to have served no purpose, because they didn't serve to convince anyone.

Another explanation is that people under the influence of faith are more disposed to interpreting what they see as being miraculous. Faith would cause then to discount any possible natural explanations, and turn instead to "goddidit" as the standard explanation for all kinds of things. Consider, for example, explanations of the empty tomb. Despite the fact that there are many perfectly plausible natural explanations, Christians under the influence of faith reject them all in favor of the miraculous resurrection - even though nobody ever claimed to have seen it happen.

The requirements for these canons are as follows: (a) the disease must be severe, incurable, or difficult to treat; (b) it must not be in a final stage; (c) no curative treatment can have been given; (d) the cure must be instantaneous; (d) the cure must be complete without relapse.

So if these rules are so strict, how could Vittorio Micheli qualify?

Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk. By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life.

Hardly what you would call a sudden and complete cure, is it?

First, let me say that you can't dispute my argument by putting words in my mouth that I never said, or by falsely presenting my position. The point of my comment was to observe the fact that the only people who claim to witness miracles are those who are "faithful". Skeptics (or people who are not "under the influence" of faith) never get to see these things first-hand. And that's a problem for empiricists.

you did say one,I gave you 7 and yo said one that's not given by someone who believe that's clearly insane because who but a person who believers would have good evidence that proves it? whist unbeliever is going to give you good incidence that proves miracles? they would have to be convinced if thy are honest then you wont believe then,if they believe it ten you will use that not argue agaisnt it.

No matter how good the evidence you will never accept it, your objection is NOT about evidence or proof or reason it's about ideology



The point of my comment was to observe the fact that the only people who claim to witness miracles are those who are "faithful". Skeptics (or people who are not "under the influence" of faith) never get to see these things first-hand. And that's a problem for empiricists.

How can this discrepancy be explained? Maybe God deliberately limits who can see his miraculous workings.


I just answered it. When the evidence is good,if they are honest they get converted, so the fact believers have the evidence is proof the evidence is good.well it's not really that's not they way to judge the issue. you are resisting judging the evidence on it's own merits. You are ore concerned with who presents it it's more important to you than how it is gathered,you don't care about evidence.


But if that's true, then the biblical stories of miracles would have to be re-evaluated in light of this, because it has generally been assumed that miracles were a show of divine power for the purpose of convincing people that it is real. But if the only ones who saw them were already convinced, then they seem to have served no purpose, because they didn't serve to convince anyone.

that is naive fundamentalist thinking,you need to get your head out of that baby land paradigm and learn modern theology.


And then we have things like the "miraculous" cure of Monica Besra, cited by the church in the beatification of Mother Teresa. Turned out to be totally bogus. It wasn't cancer, as the church claimed, and (contrary to the claims of the church) it was treated by a doctor, who adamantly states that Mother Teresa (who was already dead) had nothing to do with her cure.

who but a person who believers would have good evidence that proves it? whist unbeliever is going to give you good incidence that proves miracles? they would have to be convinced if thy are honest then you wont believe then,if they believe it ten you will use that not argue agaisnt it.

You didn't listen to what I said. I wasn't talking about people who have been subsequently convinced by the evidence they see. I was talking about who gets to witness miracles in the first place. It never happens to skeptics. it only happens to people who are ALREADY under the influence of faith.

Another explanation is that people under the influence of faith are more disposed to interpreting what they see as being miraculous. Faith would cause then to discount any possible natural explanations, and turn instead to "goddidit" as the standard explanation for all kinds of things. Consider, for example, explanations of the empty tomb. Despite the fact that there are many perfectly plausible natural explanations, Christians under the influence of faith reject them all in favor of the miraculous resurrection - even though nobody ever claimed to have seen it happen.

The rules the committee works by will not permit that, you didn't read a single word of my paper did you? because I spelled out the rules. It's obvious, they require medical evidence it's the doctor's testimony that counts. It has nothing to do with belief.Were they sick? are they well now? what is the evidence?

im-skeptical said...
And then we have things like the "miraculous" cure of Monica Besra, cited by the church in the beatification of Mother Teresa. Turned out to be totally bogus. It wasn't cancer, as the church claimed, and (contrary to the claims of the church) it was treated by a doctor, who adamantly states that Mother Teresa (who was already dead) had nothing to do with her cure.

(1) not Lourdes, it;s the slant committee. they have topological measure and her beatification was rushed through so that' not a good example.My argument is about Lourdes,Lourdes doesn't have that kind of pressure.


(2) you have ot document,why whould I accept yuor workde?


2/27/2017 09:39:00 AM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...

who but a person who believers would have good evidence that proves it? whist unbeliever is going to give you good incidence that proves miracles? they would have to be convinced if thy are honest then you wont believe then,if they believe it ten you will use that not argue agaisnt it.

You didn't listen to what I said. I wasn't talking about people who have been subsequently convinced by the evidence they see. I was talking about who gets to witness miracles in the first place. It never happens to skeptics. it only happens to people who are ALREADY under the influence of faith.

wrong. different kinds of people see them.I was an atheist when I had my first taste of it. also an atheist saw a miracle with my Dad in my living room and was freaked out. the whole ER crew saw and they were all stunned. Originally most of them were going:wow that;s not supposed to happen."

My father was apparently having a heart attack and.or stroke The vitals were all over the place indicating one or both conditions.we laid hands on him and prayed and his vitals changed, they had him hooked up to their equipment and they saw the sings change and move to indicate a normal responses, then he got alright, He could talk and no more pain.


One of then just freaked,He was an atheist (they told me) he started crying and shouting going "it didn't happen! it didn't happen!" the others just looked down at their shoes and were silent then they left.I talked to the main guy about it he was very clear something amazing happened and they all saw it.

you did not read my essay as you never do, if you did you would know the claims of Lourdes are factually based they are backed with scientific evidence and the committee that gathers it is nonindependent of the church. There is no way the zealous nature of a fanatical believer can influence the process because it's based upon medical evidence. THOSE ARE THE RULES!

you did not read my essay as you never do, if you did you would know the claims of Lourdes are factually based they are backed with scientific evidence and the committee that gathers it is nonindependent of the church. There is no way the zealous nature of a fanatical believer can influence the process because it's based upon medical evidence. THOSE ARE THE RULES!

Joe, you don't read your own material, much less what I tell you.

That medical committee doesn't make the determination of a miracle. All they do is certify that they don't have a valid medical explanation. It is the CHURCH that determines whether a miracle has occurred. This determinatioin is not based on facts. It is based on ignorance (we don't know the medical explanation, therefore GODDIDIT).

Furthermore, they apparently don't follow those rules, as I pointed out earlier (and you completely ignored that one).

Finally, as the medical expertise of the panel becomes more modern, the findings of no medical explanation are mysteriously becoming less frequent. Why do you suppose that is?

you did not read my essay as you never do, if you did you would know the claims of Lourdes are factually based they are backed with scientific evidence and the committee that gathers it is nonindependent of the church. There is no way the zealous nature of a fanatical believer can influence the process because it's based upon medical evidence. THOSE ARE THE RULES!

SkepticalJoe, you don't read your own material, much less what I tell you.

That medical committee doesn't make the determination of a miracle. All they do is certify that they don't have a valid medical explanation. It is the CHURCH that determines whether a miracle has occurred. This determinatioin is not based on facts. It is based on ignorance (we don't know the medical explanation, therefore GODDIDIT).

that is an extremely silly argument, There is no scientific fat that says this is or is not a miracle. science can only tell us what the committee tells us that they can or cannot explain it by naturalistic means. the Church makes the final termination but by the time they get hold of it the committee has done its work so it's already vetted medically and the church only deices if there is a theological issue. the medical committee is the gatekeeper and their keeping is factual. The church has no input in the medical aspects.



Furthermore, they apparently don't follow those rules, as I pointed out earlier (and you completely ignored that one).

I didn't see what you said. At the end of JPII's life they began to dispute the rules
but the 67 miracles chosen already were done in times when they followed the rules meticulously.



Skep

Finally, as the medical expertise of the panel becomes more modern, the findings of no medical explanation are mysteriously becoming less frequent. Why do you suppose that is?


yes no doubt some miracles were cases of not enough but that doesn;t mean all the old cases are out the window, The article by the medical historians says it's stil the cse noexlainaitoin formost of the cases all the67 and most of the thokusnds of others,,

that is an extremely silly argument, There is no scientific fat that says this is or is not a miracle. science can only tell us what the committee tells us that they can or cannot explain it by naturalistic means. the Church makes the final termination but by the time they get hold of it the committee has done its work so it's already vetted medically and the church only deices if there is a theological issue. the medical committee is the gatekeeper and their keeping is factual. The church has no input in the medical aspects.

All the medical committee does is certify that they can't explain the cure medically. There are no "facts" the church cares about beyond that. CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable". But even advanced cancers sometimes do go into remission spontaneously. This is usually attributed to a boost in the immune system. It is completely natural, and to say that is medically unexplained is simply an appeal to ignorance. The committee is doing nothing more than certifying that they don't know how the cure happened.



I didn't see what you said. At the end of JPII's life they began to dispute the rules but the 67 miracles chosen already were done in times when they followed the rules meticulously.

So sct=roll up and look at what I said in this thread at 2/27/2017 09:25:00 AM.

I directly cited your own case of one of these miracle cures. Only trouble is, it took years to clear up. How can you say "they followed the rules meticulously"? This cure was certainly not sudden and complete.

All the medical committee does is certify that they can't explain the cure medically. There are no "facts" the church cares about beyond that. CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous";

they don't have to be don't you get it? If they don't pass a case it will never be judged a miracle because the theology guys will never see it, The theology guys can only screw up in a way that helps your case because they might turn down a real miracle, they could turn down a case with scientific merit but they can't judge a case with no scientific merit because they will never see it. The medical guys wont let it get to them.


this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable". But even advanced cancers sometimes do go into remission spontaneously.


they don't cases with high remission rates, and they don't take any leukemia.that is not going to bias the results because they scree that out. the medical guys get them first on if they have scientific merit do they go to the theological guys.

This is usually attributed to a boost in the immune system. It is completely natural, and to say that is medically unexplained is simply an appeal to ignorance. The committee is doing nothing more than certifying that they don't know how the cure happened.

that's why they set up the rules to exclude cases iwth high remission rates,they don't take certain kinds of cancer,

Me: "I didn't see what you said. At the end of JPII's life they began to dispute the rules but the 67 miracles chosen already were done in times when they followed the rules meticulously."

So sct=roll up and look at what I said in this thread at 2/27/2017 09:25:00 AM.

I directly cited your own case of one of these miracle cures. Only trouble is, it took years to clear up. How can you say "they followed the rules meticulously"? This cure was certainly not sudden and complete.

just tell me the name. sure it was actual one of the 67? you can't use that excuse to runotallo 7000 remarkable cases or even all 67 officoial miracles.

Of the listed nine supposed miracles, only two have any details at all, and of them, the case of Vittorio Micheli, it turns out it is not a miracle according to the criteria set out:

"The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;"

For Micheli it took some eight months for the tumor to disappear. How many others are similarly not really miracles?

By the way, this paper is of interest.

Pix

Vittorio Micheli atheists have been using this example to really go after it because little informal partial lists like throne I had don;'t reveal much about the actual assails, that does not mean the researchers don't have more.

As far the issue of the time factor the actual tumor was negated and did stop growing the damage was reversed immediately,the rules don't say every vestige of it has to go away at once; the article by the medical historians who are totally indolent of the Church and for all I know might be atheists because they are secular academics that the healings are still unexplained.

As far the issue of the time factor the actual tumor was negated and did stop growing the damage was reversed immediately,the rules don't say every vestige of it has to go away at once;

You're so full of it. You don't read your own sources. You just spout whatever excuse sounds good to you at the moment, while ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself.

From your own article:
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.

From the article I cited:
- The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
- The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)


There is no question that this particular "miracle" did not comply with the rules as stated. Not to mention the fact that any REAL doctor would have suggested the possibility of a natural remission.




My answer:As far the issue of the time factor the actual tumor was negated and did stop growing the damage was reversed immediately,the rules don't say every vestige of it has to go away at once;

Skep's childish answer:You're so full of it. You don't read your own sources. You just spout whatever excuse sounds good to you at the moment, while ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself.

From your own article:
4.“ Quartum, ut sanatio sit subita, et momentanea ” – Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.

define recovery dumb ass? define "tale place" there ca't be a scar?

"Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk."

the major issues were gone immediately,we can bse that on this statement, he could walk that meansthe tumoar has to be reduced in size and is now beign,


"By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had re calcified, and he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy on 26 May 1976."

that does not say the tumor was a full strength until feb then vanished,it obviousness leased immediacy and the offstage is there until feb, it was criticized years latter not that thati t took years to heal,


5.“ Quintum, ut sanatio sit perfecta, non manca, aut concisa ” – Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial.

that does not say the perfection has to be immediate it can just as easily be understood as oversl in the long run it has to be perfectand it was, by Feb 4 it was all gone,


From the article I cited:
- The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
- The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)

that;s exactly what it shows, the symptoms and signs were that his leg was useless duje to the growth of the tumor, that needed immediateness,


There is no question that this particular "miracle" did not comply with the rules as stated. Not to mention the fact that any REAL doctor would have suggested the possibility of a natural remission.

this is childish insistence based upon finding one flaw in something cloning to it because it's all you got. you said show me one miracle is showed you 7000 and at taht poimnt the fear of hell kick's up and you have to latch onto one case to nullify the positive case,so If there's one case of true miracle God is real and you are going to hell so you have to find one case to undo it so you wont fear hell.

you latch on to one and find fault and then pretend that invalidates them all, I proved the one and by your own reasoning is invalid, if you fine one flawed case that does not disprove the other 6.999.out of that i bet i can find one.



Vittorio Micheli
1 June 1963
age 23; Scurelle, Italy
Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk. By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy on 26 May 1976.

skep think logically you cna;thow what made the Tumor go away and it violates medical knowledge,

Reading uo on the case. Micheli did not sit around having a Tumor until Feb 64. He was in the army, He could not walk and was in an army hospital. Family took him to Lourdes he came back walking. No one examined him or looked at the xrays that were taken after that because the army assumed he would not be healed. It was feb opf 64 before they noticed the tumor was gone,that does not mean it did't disappear immediately, it was that long before they recognized it.

They did all acceptance of his case ex post facto because he ad started walking again immediately.Based upon that they assumed he had been healed immediately but it was nor recorded.when they actually looked at the xrays they found he had been healed.

So the rules stating that the cure has to be instant and complete don't mean what they say. You are definitely full of it.

I just looked at one case, and found it to be highly questionable. (And by the way, it does not "violate medical knowledge". It sounds exactly like a natural spontaneous remission.) I never claimed that all cases would be invalidated by this, but I suspect that the church is motivated to overlook certain facts to make their case. And the UTTERLY BOGUS miracle of Mother Teresa is proof of that. Truth is no object when you have a religious agenda.

you have not responded to my answer on why it seemed to take long on the tumor, it did not actually, i explained your criticism is void. you must answer my argument,

This comment has been removed by the author.

skep: I bet you can't show me one single miracle not one.

Me: here's one

skep: I bet you can't show me another one

Me: here's another one

Skep: you can't how me 65

Me: Here are 65

Skep: You can't show me 7000

Me: here are 7000

Skep:O yea? well one of those is bad,

Joe: Here's one (actually several).
Me: It's bogus. A natural healing. These things happen.
Joe: Here are 7000.
Me: Great. Now show me an actual miracle.

And before you go off on me again, I need to remind you that this is your argument. You are trying to convince me that miracles happen. So show me something convincing. I mean something that is CLEARLY a miracle, as in something that doesn't happen in nature. People get healed all the time. It happens naturally (or by non-miraculous natural means). Why should I be convinced By that? Show me something convincing.

Joe: Here's one (actually several).
Me: It's bogus. A natural healing. These things happen.
Joe: Here are 7000.
Me: Great. Now show me an actual miracle.

you did not prove it was bogus, your reasoning is totally comical. rather than ascertain the facts in the case you assert you can know them based supe-farcical details in a thumbnail discrimination.,I told you the facts he was healed immediately, read what I said, you can't make it questionable just because you say so

Micheli did not sit around having a Tumor until Feb 64. He was in the army, He could not walk and was in an army hospital. Family took him to Lourdes he came back walking. No one examined him or looked at the xrays that were taken after that because the army assumed he would not be healed. It was feb opf 64 before they noticed the tumor was gone,that does not mean it did't disappear immediately, it was that long before they recognized it.

And before you go off on me again, I need to remind you that this is your argument. You are trying to convince me that miracles happen.

wrong. I am not concerned with what you believe,I am only concerned with pointing out the dishonesty and inconsistency of your so called critique.

So show me something convincing. I mean something that is CLEARLY a miracle, as in something that doesn't happen in nature. People get healed all the time. It happens naturally (or by non-miraculous natural means). Why should I be convinced By that? Show me something convincing.

that;s a stupid game noting will ever convenience some one who doesn't want to believe, os demanding that I convence is assign,

the things I expedience my life are CLEARLY miracles, they even jade an atheist cry and run fon my houses hounding it didn't happen. you have a huge ego investment in religion being wrong, nothing will ever make you change until you are willing to seek god in your heart,

People get healed all the time. It happens naturally (or by non-miraculous natural means). Why should I be convinced By that? Show me something convincing.

that is a truly witless argument, the Lourdes committee has top medical experts and skeptical they are not going to just declare some standard case a miracle, tumors don't go away over night, people don;t start walking again over night. that guy did, the other cases arfe also amazing, none of those happen naturally they are all totally improbable by the odds which are calculate din medicine,

charles Annee was dying of an advanced kind of kind of tb. he prayed and over night his lungs were like new.

Christians have a far bigger investment in religion being right. We are just arguing anonymoyusly on the internet. That is pretty much zero investment. Christians dedicate their lives to God, spend hours in church, in prayer.

Christianity requires commitment; atheism, not so much.

you did not prove it was bogus, your reasoning is totally comical.
- You just don't get it, do you? You can cite all the cases you like of "miraculous" disease cures. As long as there is any reasonable natural explanation, then I am not convinced that it's a miracle. Do diseases go into remission? YES. Are there natural explanations (regardless of whether we know whether that's the case)? YES. Then it's probably natural. I don't buy the miracle explanation, even if you do. Show me something convincing.

"Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday School,
Have all the bishops harmonize these lines."

Anonymous said...
Christians have a far bigger investment in religion being right. We are just arguing anonymoyusly on the internet. That is pretty much zero investment. Christians dedicate their lives to God, spend hours in church, in prayer.

Christianity requires commitment; atheism, not so much.

I think a lot of atheists really fear hell and they desperately seek at least keep that fear away if not to disprove it, they are never really satisfied iwth the disproof,That;s why the one's who are loaded iwth hate keep going, they fear if hey ever give in to the actual fear it will be true, That is magical thinking.

everything the ramping apologetical atheist says is a double standard, you think I've wasted my life believing in God but you probably also think life is meaningless and whatever one does to be happy is ok right? then you also smirk at belief in God because i t makes you happy right?

Meta
you did not prove it was bogus, your reasoning is totally comical.


- You just don't get it, do you? You can cite all the cases you like of "miraculous" disease cures. As long as there is any reasonable natural explanation, then I am not convinced that it's a miracle. Do diseases go into remission? YES.

there are no reasonable natural explanations for the Lourdes miracles that's what the team of medical historians found, you have not proven one for any case.

You can say you are not convinced all you are proving is that you can't evaluate evidence you don't know what is reasonable and nothing could ever convince you because you don't care about truth. evidence means nothing to you, that's what I have proven. Your demimonde for evidence is phony you don't really want evidence.

YOU DON'T GET IT ALL YOur PROTESTATIONS PROVE MY POINT ABOUT YOUR INCREDULITY,



Are there natural explanations (regardless of whether we know whether that's the case)? YES. Then it's probably natural. I don't buy the miracle explanation, even if you do. Show me something convincing.

you haven't offered one. not without ignoring the facts, you have to argue from incredulity and ignore the facts.

"Well you can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday School,
Have all the bishops harmonize these lines."

I don't care about excommunicating you just stop pretending your are some kind of rational tgriuth seeker,you aren ot,

JH: I think a lot of atheists really fear hell and ...

That is the flaw in your claim, right there. Atheists do not believe hell exists (a significant number of Christians do not either).

Pix

Anonymous said...
JH: I think a lot of atheists really fear hell and ...

That is the flaw in your claim, right there. Atheists do not believe hell exists (a significant number of Christians do not either).

but they really do. they claim not to but they actually do because they know intuitively god is real. i'm not saying all atheists are doing this.

People are not always consistent.

And obviously you know how atheists think so much better than atheists do because..?

but they really do. they claim not to but they actually do because they know intuitively god is real. i'm not saying all atheists are doing this.

And obviously you know how atheists think so much better than atheists do because..?

Because Joe is a typical ex-atheist. And obviously, he knew all the while that there was a God and a hell.

And obviously you know how atheists think so much better than atheists do because..?

Because Joe is a typical ex-atheist. And obviously, he knew all the while that there was a God and a hell.

why should it be so surprising that someone who was was atheist knows how they think? Atheists fear hell because they don't know God not because do know him,When you come to know God you learn things are not always what they seem,. Hell is a metaphor for spiritual death, Spiritual death is real.

why should it be so surprising that someone who was was atheist knows how they think?

Joe you don't know how REAL atheists think because you never were one. You always believed in God and hell, even when you called yourself an atheist. But that's not what an atheist is. Either you're lying to us or you lied to yourself. And no, you don't understand how atheists think. Just like you don't understand science, even though you tell yourself that you do.

Joe you don't know how REAL atheists think because you never were one.

they always resort to that when they lose, you come out and say I was an atheist and I thought this way: they have to destroy that so they pull out the more atheist than though button. That is such a contradiction to their propaganda about it not being an organized movement. They will claim there is no standard set of atheist beliefs but when you show that some times atheist do think in ways that make a contradiction of their views they pull this standardized atheist crap. How can it be both not organized with no standard belief system and yet you are not a true atheist if you think in certain ways?

there's not supposed to be a true atheist,



You always believed in God and hell, even when you called yourself an atheist.


chances are you still believe in God and fear hell. But you are making a value judgement as to what constitutes belief you have no right to do that. There is a distinction between an intuitive sense and a consciously held set of belief, most people will understand this.,


But that's not what an atheist is. Either you're lying to us or you lied to yourself. And no, you don't understand how atheists think. Just like you don't understand science, even though you tell yourself that you do.

999%of atheists I run into,and I've made more than half a million posts since I've been doing this so several hundred thou is and atheists I've talked to almost all of them say there is no standard set of beliefs to be an atheist, all you have to do is not believe in Gkd, I did not bleieve in God between the ages of 16-23.


If you say "I don't believe in God? then you are an atheist, no party pledge no swearing an oath on with your hand on a copy of God Delusion, that you hate Christianity or anything like that. Either you don't don't believe or you do. If you don't you are an atheist.

there is no prescribed set of reasons not to believe, if you don't see that you are not very bright.then you can't turn around an make a more atheist then thou stamen of faith and demand alleged to it as a requirement for membership in the organization that isuppossedly doesn't exist.

You can't make a requirement about the depth of disbelef.

Another thing Skepie, you can't say you are a man of reason and you are investigating ideas and you are open to truth if you are in danger of being kicked out of atheism if you feel too much of a sense that there night be God.

Can't you see the muck you are making of artiest propaganda?

There is no atheism in the sense of something to get kicked out of. I do not know about "Skepie" but my commitment to atheism is to post anonymously about it on the internet. If I find reason to doubt my position, at worst, I stop posting as "The Pixie". There is no embarrassment for me to do that. There is no sense of having wasted my life. Or my money; I have never spent a penny on atheism.

Again, you are confusing atheism with a religion. Religions require commitment. Religions require you to commit your time and money, they require you to live your life a certain way.

Atheists can afford to be open-minded, theists cannot.

And consequently we see posts like the above, where theists project their own situation on atheists. If a Christian is open-minded enough to see the truth, the Christian does risk being ejected from their community.

Joe, this site is a great example of just that. If one of your Christian Cadre started to doubt the Nicene creed, what would you do to him? Would you continue to let him post? Or kick him out?

Use of Content

The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at christiancadre@yahoo.com.