All arguments from miracles are non causa pro causa anyway.  Even if somebody is actually able to prove that a miracle happened, it's not evidence that God was a cause for the miraculous event.

Whenever you see a believer using the word "miracle", you should automatically be skeptical: It's a loaded word.

"Miracle" is a word that believers apply to statistically improbable situations that they consider highly positive or beneficial. Alternatively, they attribute no such word to statistically improbable situations that are highly negative or put them at a disadvantage or are somehow associated with "sin".

A man flying home to spend Christmas with his family has his flight canceled due to an unexpected outbreak of poisonous snakes on the plane. This is a highly improbable event, but is most likely chalked up to bad luck.

Then, in a startling turn of events, all of the snakes die simultaneously! Flight uncancelled! It's a miracle!

Halfway home, the plane is suddenly struck by three consecutive bolts of lightning, sending it crashing toward the earth. Highly improbable, but very bad! No miracles here!

The plane crashes and everyone dies except for the man being examined. He stumbles out of the plane, completely ignoring that 300 other people have just died, and proclaims that his being alive is a miracle! Highly improbable + positive? Yep! Miracle!

Arriving at his doorstep, the man is suddenly struck by a hailstone they size of his own head, nearly killing him. No miracles here! Just freaky nature!

The doctors give hime a 1% chance of survival, but he somehow recovers! Nevermind the fact that the doctors were purposely giving low odds to protect themselves! This is a miracle! 

It could go all day. You see how it works. 

Interesting thing about the amputees...

God can never heal an amputee, but did you know that scientists have found a way to heal them? I'm not talking about prosthetics either.

There was a TEDtalk about it not too long ago. They studied animals that are able to regenerate body parts and how they are able to do that biologically. From whatever mechanism they found (it's been a while ago since I've seen it) they created a sort of organic goop that they spread on lost body parts so that they would grow back.

I don't know that they've grown back an entire arm or leg or anything at this point.  But I know that they grew a horse's face back, they grew back the tip of a man's finger, and they're now trying it out on burn victims as an alternative to skin grafting.

It's okay, God. We'll take this one.  

I've seen alot of miracles. I've even heard of legs growing back. what does everyone else think? what would you say to christians who do supernatural unexplainable things? Is it real? I can't think of a rational explanation.

Since when was "I've heard" considered substantial enough evidence that explanations need to be given in defense?  I don't think your questions are even worth answering until you've provided something remotely resembling evidence to the claims that you're making and have heard.  As to these miracles you claim to have seen, care to elaborate a little on what they may be and what testing was done to provide evidence they were in fact miracles?  Extroadinary claims require extroadinary evidence, you have provided anything but.

            OhMan check the dates and the names on this post;  THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!       See if you can get an answer to your question.

I don't know. I couldn't understand the launguage in the video so I got nothing. It looks like her eyes are such a dark brown that you couldn't see the pupils anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ju4HeobGM

 I think I saw that there are three other videos for it on youtube above this one. This one is in spanish and I only know spanish cuss words and a little bit of others.

I guess you and I are just not as easily impressed as some. Maybe we just don't know enough Catholicism and CliffJumper should help us.

Yep, this is excellent. All evidence points towards Aniridia. Much obliged!

 I had read something very similar when I made the initial post. Was it coincidence? Maybe. Maybe it was in their trip that her grandmother noticed for the first time she could under the right lighting see something. Remember that this is just an article. People embellish stories when they become convinced they are miraculous or paranormal. Also pious reporters embellish what they are told. Thinking that religious people do not lie because they believe is a sin is so naive. If that was so there would hardly ever be lies since most people are religious. Have you never heard of pious fraud? We know thousands of cases of this. People fabricate miracles and make up stories or most likely change and embellish them because they think it is for the "greater glory of God" or because they bring people to the faith.

Also it matters when the article was written. Did they talk to them right after it happened or most likely several years afterwards. Have you never found how wrong you were when remembering something that happened several years before?  I found an article here http://www.cicap.org/emilia/pupille.htm (it's in Italian) where they mention inconsistencies in the few details of the story in the several reports he was able to dig up. For example who was it who had the dream. In short the reported circumstances are difficult to verify but if you compare her pictures to the pictures of people who have aniridia you will see that they look exactly the same and their vision, when they have any, is also difficult unless they are under a low light which is why she has to wear sunglasses when she goes out. The things I mentioned in my original post we are able to verify. I would give them a hundred times more weight than any reported circumstances which might point to a strange coincidence (which do happen) at best.

I think that the "amputee test" is probably not a great one for atheists.  The first (there have been many) exceedingly well documented regrowth of an amputated fingertip was in 1932 (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC402335/?tool=pmcentrez) and while it was not attributed to a miracle or scientific intervention it establishes the possibility for humans to regrow tissue spontaneously in response to an amputation.  I'm not comfortable with the idea that god does not exist because amputees don't regrow limbs (nor am I comfortable with acknowledging existence because amputees do).

From a theist position where bad things only happen to sinners, the loss of a limb could be considered some kind of punishment thus making regrowth unlikely even if miracles were common.  It could also be perceived as causal by a theist...the limb was removed because it was fated to be removed so regrowth would be senseless.

From an atheist position if amputated limbs could only regrow through the actions of a god, well, this seems like a pretty small test for the existence of an all-powerful being who created everything, can destroy all at a whim, and demands constant worship.  I think that it fails to answer the fundamental question--why would such a being exist and why would it be so difficult to detect this being.

Hagiography in the Catholic tradition tends to emphasise that miracles (typically) attend two things: 1) the true faith and 2) a life of extraordinary sanctity led according to the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and these only in the rarest instances.

It does not seem likely to me that a God who has revealed Himself profoundly (by the Incarnation), and Whose Church still exists visibly on this earth and is known (to a greater or lesser extent) to all men, the God I confess, would confirm nothing more than His mere existence by acquiescing to every request of anyone's prayer, no matter their denomination or way of life, since this would bear false witness about more important truths only to verify a proposition about which (for the moment) the greater part of humanity has no serious doubt, and would put eternal goods at risk for temporal benefits.

That being said, I see no reason for miracles not to be in greater currency except, perhaps, that lives of extraordinary sanctity according to the counsels are very, very rare.  A life led according to those counsels, nevertheless, is itself a tremendous miracle.  God, so the Scriptures tell us, desires the worship of hearts, not the service of lips, and a generous heart which responds to God's call to forsake the world, take up its Cross, and follow Him--a pure heart--is a shining witness to the living God's continual working on and pouring grace into the hearts of men. 

Faith comes by hearing, though if the current of man's thought is right belief simply in God can come by reason.  Christians cannot afford to think that this applies any less to the inductive reasoning of today than it did to the deductive reasoning of the past.  The exercise enjoined on Christians is not primarily one of reasoning to dogmas, but rather, as Psalm 94(5): If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.  And if our minds are open to the possibility of God's revelation of Himself (and even the most developed of secular logic leaves at least the possibility of God open) and our hearts are open to listening and responding to Him if He does so (for most of us have hearts of stone), then we ourselves will become the evidence of God so widely sought, and room for doubt will vanish.

But, and this is the sad teaching of the Fall, no one has real insight into his own intentions.  The desert fathers used to say that no one should follow his heart's desire until it was absolutely clean of the passions, the irrational desires that torment fallen man and pull him at his very centre away from God.  But striving for truth, not simply abstract, propositional truth, but the truth of one's own actions, honest introspection and striving to, as St. Thomas puts it, do good and avoid evil: this seems to be the first step towards opening one's heart.

I see emotionally-charged religious belief, unfounded in any rational discourse, every day.  I also know people who disbelieve for emotional reasons, for reasons of guilt, despair, or anger at God over shattered expectations or hopes.  I cannot, however, jump from this observation to the conclusion that belief or disbelief is always a thing of the heart.  For different people, different sets of beliefs are emotionally appealing, depending on the circumstances.  For some people on both sides (and these are very rare), belief or disbelief has been grounded wholly in rationality, in spite of any emotional considerations.

It is an unfair and inaccurate characterisation (I might even say caricature) of religion that would be always emotionally appealing.  I see this caricature at funerals all the time: the departed are invariably reported as being certainly in heaven, rejoicing in beatitude with choirs of angels.  Such religion is no religion, it is merely a crutch.  This is not the God who drove John into the wilderness to survive on locusts and wild honey, nor the God who led St. Anthony to his austere desert life of penance and prayer.

When I refer to secular logic, I am not attempting to differentiate in the way you seem to suspect.  I rather mean simply to say, "by a line of reasoning acceptable to those who do not hold religious premisses."

I would not argue that poverty is unqualifiedly a virtue.  Any state in which a man finds himself can be turned to the service of God.  Who would give to the poor if all were poor?  And why give to the poor if it were not good that they should have enough?  Providence always positions us in such a way that we can serve Him.  Nor is voluntary poverty always virtuous.  The primary provider for a family, if he makes no further provision, would be gravely remiss in his duties were he to chuck all for a life of austerity.  Nor would a state be well-served by a king who lived as a monk (indeed, in Bede we read of just such a king, Sigberct, whose thanes killed him for his undue benevolence to enemies of the state).  Kings as well as paupers are numbered saints.

Chastity indeed does not preclude the two co-equal ends of the conjugal act, namely the procreative and the unitive, and the Church has always admitted that for grave reasons certain measures may be taken (which do not compromise the integrity of the act itself) to avoid conception, since the unity of the conjugal act may prove most necessary at just those junctures which recommend against conception.  The Church nevertheless contends that the act is of such importance (indeed, if I am to believe my biology it seems to be pretty central to human nature and to life in general) that it entails a committment on the part of both parties to one another.  And I'm certain that I needn't convince anyone convinced of the equal dignity of man and woman that polygamy and polyandry are each abhorrent in their way to that dignity.

Obedience to legitimate authority is virtuous.  Nevertheless, you will find precedent from the very beginning of Christian thought against obeying unjust authorities.  Weren't the first martyrs killed for just such disobedience to civil authority?  And as early as Augustine we learn that an unjust law is no law at all.

It is also worth remembering that these three things, poverty, chastity (in the sense of perfect continence, celibacy, virginity), and obedience, are not meant to be universal imperatives, but are rather addressed to those to whom those gifts are given.  "Let him who can receive receive," and again, "It has not been given to all men..."  So to argue that they cannot be willed universally is to argue what the Christ Himself taught.

Unfortunately you seem to have imbibed an empty caricature of Christian theology and morality in particular.  I can only to shudder to think how many well-meaning people you have encountered who have confirmed you in these opinions.  Nevertheless, you must see them for what they are: inaccurate representations of our beliefs.  Anything I have just said may easily be found in the most basic of Catholic doctrinal and moral manuals. 

We are all fallible.  St. Thomas Aquinas accounts more sin to ignorance than to malice.  St. John Fisher, an English martyr who was watching his fellow bishops all acquiesce to the immoral demands of Henry VIII went farther, saying that we are to presume that all men are acting in good faith.  We must instruct them in their ignorance, not be angry at their failings.  St. Thomas More, a contemporary and fellow-martyr of Fisher's wrote that we are to bear no malice nor ill-will towards any man living, and that if we cannot punish wrongdoers (for he was in civil authority and so charged) without malice towards them, but only for justice's sake, we should hand them over to someone else for punishment.

An awareness of human fallibility is at the heart of Christian charity.  Christ on the Cross:  "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."

I am so sorry that you do not seem able to admit even the slightest virtue in another's position, nor recognise even the smallest flaw in your own.  Your responses during my long lurk had always struck me as those of a more thoughtful man than your latest suggests.  I hope your last post is really the aberration it seems to be.

The nature of my response was no more than to clarify what seemed to be some misconceptions on your part as to the nature of and teachings about the evangelical counsels.  I proposed nothing from authority for your belief; I merely argued from the Church's own authority to clarify what She Herself believes.

I'm not sure why you are stuck on the intrinsic virtue of these things.  Virtues in one sense pertain mostly to broad areas.  Justice, for instance, pertains to giving to each what he is due.  However, in the actual application of justice, what is justice for one will not necessarily be justice for another. 

To return to the question at hand, that of perfect continence: you're right, it will not always be the virtuous course.  The nature of the marriage contract is such as to bind each party to pay the marriage debt, and so one who thinks himself wholly virtuous in abstaining from all pleasures of the flesh might, though he does not violate chastity, violate justice in failing to render to his wife what is her due, namely, conjugal relations. 

So, as to the intrinsic virtue of these things: no, unilaterally they are not always good things for everybody in all situations at all times.  But to that I give my wholehearted consent and emphasise that they were not meant for everybody in all situations at all times.  They are gifts given to some for the benefit of many.  The basic advantages of celibacy are set forth quite ably by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians.  The married man, as he says, is concerned for the things of the world, how he may please his wife.  But the unmarried man is concerned for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.  The gift of celibacy has never been understood as one meant to secure a life of strifeless peace for the one so gifted, but rather an opportunity to devote himself more fully to the service of the Lord and of His people, with an undivided heart.

To obedience, I repeat exactly my last quote from St. Augustine.  "An unjust law is no law at all."  Legitimate authority is only legitimate when exercised legitimately. 

So authority is first legitimate in the sense that the one exercising authority is actually entitled to exercise that authority, but its legitimacy depends further on the just exercise of that authority.

But you don't need me to tell you that, and certainly not twice.  It would not take much more than skimming the Fathers and the Councils to find that this is the perennial teaching of the Church.

I shudder for myself because I fall so short of the mark.

As I saw it there was not any summary dismissal.  It was more of a shrug.

The actual claims you made in our discussion did not mention anything about your problems with the Scriptures, but addressed directly points I had made about the evangelical counsels, to which specific objections (which were typically misconceptions) I made specific answer.

"Entitled" and "just" will have to vary in their interpretation across circumstances.  I cannot give any but the broadest definitions.  In a monarchy, though it will vary by the laws and customs of each particular people, the first-born son of the deceased ruler is typically entitled to inherit and exercise his authority, the scope of which is limited by both positive law and custom.  In a democracy, this is clearly not the case, and either the people themselves by vote or, in a republican government, the people's elected representatives, are entitled to exercise authority, the scope of which is likewise limited by positive law and custom.  Justice involves rendering to each what is his due, however in each instance there are much more specific considerations that must be made in determining what justice in each particular case looks like.  I meant only to set forth the most general positions, which, absent any particular case, is all I can do.

If you care to express your position regarding the Scriptures in more than the utterly vaguest terms, perhaps this discussion may move forward.  Otherwise, I cannot make answer for every possible objection to every verse of Scripture in hopes that in doing so I will address your particular concerns.

I ask for honesty and take no offence at it.  I would take no offence at further criticism, although I am not sure if the italics were meant to imply that a stream of profanities is lurking behind that "really." 

I wanted to debate in this forum so as to debate civilly, but if I had felt unable to deal with being looked down upon, contradicted, or otherwise disrespected (although I do not say you have disrespected me) or having the Church so despised, I should not have visited or posted on an explicitly atheist forum.

As to my "extreme" caricature, I'm sorry if I did not forthrightly concede that position.  Consider it conceded.  If you took offence, consider forgiveness begged as well.

I would not attempt to argue against archaeological evidence with documentary evidence, but I confess that I am not well read enough in archaeological publications to have a sufficient handle on the relevant excavations to address your positions meaningfully.  Suffice it to say you've given me some reading to do.

The Crucifixion was referred to by Christ as a sign of contradiction.  I would not expect its meaning to be readily apparent.

Thanks for the reference.  Will look into them.