Comebacks from miracle proponents
Posted on: February 1, 2011 - 4:38pm
Offline
Comebacks from miracle proponents
So, you hear very often theists talking about miracles, prophecies, etc.
As an atheist debater, the easiest way to get around this is to point out that no-one ever seems to be miraculously healed when it comes to missing limbs, or diseases/injuries with 100% fatality rates.
Has anyone ever heard any decent, or even almost decent theistic responses to this?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Not even close. My host does not give an embed link but still, here are two superheroes screwing:
http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/MalpineWalis/?action=view¤t=watchmen5.mp4
=
I remember watching that scene in the movie and thinking, "how does that advance the plot?"
I thought it was a really good movie but about 1 hour too long.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
are we cool now Luminon?... you're not gonna get all ghetto on my ass now are ya?
hahahahaha no worries dude... Download "Watchmen"... poersonally, I think it's a good flick...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
You are right what could I have been thinking?
On average, 55,000 people die from rabies every year, which makes 5 survivors in 7 years pretty poor odds and yes, Giese was not the only one to survive rabies following the Milwaukee protocol. And yes doctors were there in all the deaths as well, does that make them responsible for the deaths as well? It's been tried—and failed—at least 13 times since 2004, according to a 2009 paper published in the journal Current Infectious Disease Reports. Even though Doctors are still unclear as which element of that combination made the difference, and whether the antivirals given helped save the lives the fact that they are still trying is a good thing and I don’t want to take away from medicine. However, I do want to point out the fact that research is not the same as Weknow and guessing on outcome probabilities is only an unproven hypothesis.
Of these rabies survivors all have lasting neurologic problems with the exception of 1
Of theses survivors all received the rabies vaccines with the exception of 1.
Of those who did not receive the rabies vaccines all died with the exception of 1.
Guess what - These exceptions of 1 are all the same person.
“Willoughby, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Said "She continues to get better, counter to conventional medical thinking."
What was I thinking? How could anyone consider this person out of the ordinary?
I posted an anomoly, my stance on this issue was not whether or not this was an actual miracle but on how closed-minded both sides are on issues concerning unknown reasons. While claiming the truth is only found in the god of science gaps your closed minded vision of a theist only allows them to claim the God of gaps. You should read posts before jumping to conclusions including your own.
I really hope you have the moral integrity to open your eyes, look around and exept that not all is known.
So, your stance is:
1. Pre-treatment: All known cases of rabies were fatal.
2. Post-treatment: All known cases of rabies were fatal, with the exception of cases where treatment was used, in which case fatality rate is 80%. (25 cases, 5 survivors)
3. Cases of survival where fatality rates are 80% are miraculous.
What, specifically, am I missing here? To me, this is what happens *every time* a new treatment or breakthrough happens. Someone tries something new, it works, people study it to find out why it works, treatments change and improve based on research and testing. It's cool, it's science!
By the way, the fact that she 'continues to get better' years after the illness mean she has lasting neurological issues. If she didn't, she wouldn't be 'continuing to get better', right?
I think you are confused about the vaccination. Could you explain exactly what you mean regarding that, with some quotes?
Closed minded? All *I'm* saying is that, so far in human history, nothing has happened 'outside of nature'. Unless someone can show the existence of something like that (or even define it!) then I can't imagine why I would be 'open' to the possibility outside of a science fiction or fantasy novel.
Your 'initial stance' was not about this being a miracle...well, maybe you should have written your opening post differently. Here, go take a look: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28773#comment-329443
When the factual errors of your post were pointed out you should have said, "Oh, my bad, thanks for showing me there had been other cases of survival." What we got instead is a desperate attempt to stand behind your initial claim, eventually followed by this latest back-peddling. Just be honest and say you didn't know about the other survivors and come back when you find another possible example. Easy, right? All it costs is a little pride and honestly you'd get more respect by just being open to criticism. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you learn from it.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Lol, everything you wrote implied that you were committing a God of the Gaps and argument from ignorance. If you are not, then all you're saying is, "Omg, doctors don't understand something about something. Let's be open-minded about it!", and no one here disagrees with that. It is so obvious to everyone here that it is an entirely superficial and intellectually vacuous statement. You either suck at communicating your point or you are intentionally being dishonest just to find some way to label the mean atheists as "closed-minded."
Look at your first post here.
You posted that in response to, are there are decent theistic responses to the statement that no-one ever seems to be miraculously healed?
How can anyone assume anything other than that you were presenting an example of a miracle from a theistic point of view? That's not being closed-minded. It's called possessing reading comprehension skills.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
My stance is and has been that this is an anomoly. To be clear I will define anomoly
Any occurrence or object that is strange, unusual, or unique. It can also mean a discrepancy or
deviation from an established rule, trend, or pattern.
Please note that in the definition or any post the word MIRACLE was not used.
I will also still stand on the belief that it is the best answer to Mellstad’s request.
As far as my true opinion on this matter I though it would be understood by my statement of:
“How to think, not what to think is found in type of responses given to the facts. Medicine and
science cannot take the credit because they cannot reproduce the study, God cannot be given the
credit because no physical presence of God was seen. No side can claim responsibility.
How you respond to what happened answers the statement of how you think and not how to think.”
I would have thought that this statement would fit the reading comprehension skills you spoke of and
explain my beliefs.
If you still do not understand then let me make it simple.
Medicine has not been able to reproduce the study and until that time any beliefs are due to FAITH be
it medical or God. As of Jan 12, 2011 no one has been able to reproduced or validated the treatment
in the one survivor who did not receive preexposure or postexposure prophylaxis
I will repeat again:
If you do not want to accept the girl's life as an anomaly than don’t, complain to CDC
If you want quotes than here ya go-
Mellestad’s post of Here is a more technical article from the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a1.htm
Jeanna is the only...
"Recovery of a Patient from Clinical Rabies --- Wisconsin, 2004
Rabies is a viral infection of the central nervous system, usually contracted from the bite of an
infected animal, and is nearly always fatal without proper postexposure prophylaxis (PEP)
In October 2004, a previously healthy female aged 15 years in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin,
received a diagnosis of rabies after being bitten by a bat approximately 1 month before symptom onset.
This report summarizes the investigation conducted by the Wisconsin Division of Public Health (WDPH),
the public health response in Fond du Lac County, and the patient's clinical course through December 17.
This is the first documented recovery from clinical rabies by a patient who had not received either
pre- or postexposure prophylaxis for rabies."
What doe’s Willoughby RE, the man who developed and named the Milwaukee protocol have to say?
2007 count is 5
2009 count is 4 Jeanna is still only known unimmunized survivor of rabies.
April 2007
Scientific American Magazine
Jeanna Giese of Fond du Lac, Wis., became the first known unimmunized survivor of rabies.
(Five other people who had been immunized but developed rabies anyway have also survived.)
Our novel treatment, dubbed the Milwaukee protocol, has stirred controversy among medical specialists;
some claim that Jeanna's cure was a fluke. Although the few attempts to replicate the treatment have not
saved the lives of any other rabies patients, I fervently hope that we are on the right track.
(2009) in his book "Are we getting closer to the treatment of rabies?: medical benkhmarks".
“While rabies used to be 100% lethal and we now have at least 8% survival - 2 survivors out of 25 patients
treated under the first protocol. 2 survivors out of 10 patients treated under the second protocol.”
Last report written that I know of was from Jan 12, 2011 by Sandra G Gompf, MD, FACP, FIDSA,
Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine,
University of South Florida College of Medicine; Chief, Infectious Diseases Section, Director,
Occupational Health and Infection Control Programs, James A Haley Veterans Hospital
6-recorded cases of survivors exist, 5 of whom received some level of preexposure or postexposure
prophylaxis (these agents promote immunity by inducing an active immune response) in the asymptomatic
phase and subsequently developed rabies. The use of ribavirin and induced coma has yet to be reproduced
or validated in the one survivor who did not receive preexposure or postexposure prophylaxis
(the agents promote immunity by inducing an active immune response)
Am I wrong for saying that what saved her has not been proven???
Am I wrong for saying she is the only one???
If you don't agree please send you comments to Dr.Sandra G Gompf, DR.RE Willoughby, the
Scientific American Magazine,www.cdc.gov or Rabies Registry , Medical College of Wisconsin.
This could be called a 'miracle', in the non-supernatural, metaphorical sense of the word, but not in any way evidence for supernatural intervention.
We would need positive evidence that it was impossible to survive the disease un-vaccinated for it to be a miracle in the sense intended in the OP. We don't have this.
All we have are historical records of fatality rates. The only ones that are of any significance would be for those cases which were known to have had some serious medical treatment and/or vaccination.
What may well be the reason for recovery here in only one case so far will be investigated, and the genetic makeup of both the patient and the particular strain of virus involved.
If there was some supernatural entity that may have assisted in this survival, the circumstances constitute strong evidence against it being a benevolent all-powerful God, who apparently could only 'cure' someone with a lot of help from the new treatment, or didn't care to assist all the other victims of this disease, just one of the many afflictions which he had to have been responsible for. Any supernatural entity involved was either of limited power or not particularly caring or 'loving'.
For the purpose of the original question, 'miraculous' recovery from a '100% fatal' disease would have to be involve a disease which caused obvious and serious damage to the body, such as massive destruction of major organs.
That is why the emphasis is normally on the idea of re-growth of major external appendages, at least a foot or hand, for example.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
And that answer is.....since there are things we don't understand, it is possible that God fits in there somewhere?
No, I think you're right. I checked on wiki.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
My understanding of this is they have not had more cases without immunization because they feel the new protocols are likely superior (and the new protocols include post-infection immunization treatments, so none of them are 'without vaccination'). You are not going to see more cases with the original inputs because doctors are not willing to kill the infected to test how much worse the survival rate would be without the additional therapy.
That doesn't mean it is a medical anomaly, it means the old treatment had a lower survival rate than the newer version and as such has been abandoned.
*Edit* Not sure if I'm accurate about the vaccination. Doing some research now. Anyone have any clarifications? http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712839
*Edit* Now that I look around, I'm not even sure about the claim regarding vaccination. The CDC article is from 2004 and the other articles don't seem to mention it as a critical factor in the other cases.
*Edit* http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/34532044.html So I was wrong, it is mentioned. These doctors still seem to think the protocol is what saved the kids life though. It seems current thinking is either non-vaccinated patients simply have a lower survival rate, or there was something specific about the first case, since active rabies was not actually detected in the girl. Regardless, my points below stand.
If you aren't saying it is a miracle, then this has nothing to do with my original query. I was not looking for novel medical treatments that have since been improved but that is what you gave me.
The fact that you are now claiming your original intent was not what it looked like doesn't matter. Either you made a claim and it failed, or you introduced unrelated data in reference to my question.
I'm a little bit tired of this though, your arguments are disingenuous. You continually ignore parts of other's posts at whim, flatly refusing to acknowledge other's valid points and continually re-defining your own claim. This is silly.
So, once again: If you aren't claiming it is a miracle then it is not applicable to my query. If you are claiming it is a miracle, I reject your claim based on overwhelming evidence that a medical procedure was the critical factor rather than a supernatural event.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110613/ap_on_he_me/us_rabies_survivor
Just sayin'.
Howdy all!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
haven't seen you in a while man, how have you been?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc