'Splain this one Atheists...

[Brian Peacock]

Lol

You fear the shadows in a story of which you are the sole author.

I call insulting religion and people of faith Atheist orthodoxy because it very obviously is just exactly that.

That many atheists don't have much good to say about religion and religious authorities is not an orthodoxy, a doctrine, an authorised theory or practice, and ideological obligation, a tradition in propriety, a tenet, a stricture, or a teaching. It just reflects the level of incredulity and regard atheists have for those who assert a normative obligation to respect their ideals, declarations, and actions.

That 'people of faith' (right on sista!) don't like their religion or religious authorities to be criticised, challenged, ridiculed, or disrespected is not surprising, particularly when the pragmatic orthodoxy of religion is actually to disavow the rights of anyone to criticise, challenge, ridicule, disrespect, disregard their faith, or disbelieve their assertions, and to claim to be incited to offence and fury whenever it arises. Nonetheless, getting cross with atheists does not make any of those things insults - despite the self-asserted goose-gandery which you say makes it a kind of moral obligation to insult the people the religious say they are insulted and offended by.

When was the last time you insulted a 'person of faith' for insulting an atheist or their disbelief I wonder?

[Seth]

Lol

You fear the shadows in a story of which you are the sole author.

I call insulting religion and people of faith Atheist orthodoxy because it very obviously is just exactly that.

That many atheists don't have much good to say about religion and religious authorities is not an orthodoxy, a doctrine, an authorised theory or practice, and ideological obligation, a tradition in propriety, a tenet, a stricture, or a teaching. It just reflects the level of incredulity and regard atheists have for those who assert a normative obligation to respect their ideals, declarations, and actions.

It's exactly all of that.

That 'people of faith' (right on sista!) don't like their religion or religious authorities to be criticised, challenged, ridiculed, or disrespected is not surprising, particularly when the pragmatic orthodoxy of religion is actually to disavow the rights of anyone to criticise, challenge, ridicule, disrespect, disregard their faith, or disbelieve their assertions, and to claim to be incited to offence and fury whenever it arises. Nonetheless, getting cross with atheists does not make any of those things insults - despite the self-asserted goose-gandery which you say makes it a kind of moral obligation to insult the people the religious say they are insulted and offended by.

The quid pro quoness of the Atheist orthodoxy only reinforces its religious orthodoxological and non-rational nature.

When was the last time you insulted a 'person of faith' for insulting an atheist or their disbelief I wonder?

The last time I heard one do so, which was not recently.

[Brian Peacock]

Lol

You fear the shadows in a story of which you are the sole author.

I call insulting religion and people of faith Atheist orthodoxy because it very obviously is just exactly that.

That many atheists don't have much good to say about religion and religious authorities is not an orthodoxy, a doctrine, an authorised theory or practice, and ideological obligation, a tradition in propriety, a tenet, a stricture, or a teaching. It just reflects the level of incredulity and regard atheists have for those who assert a normative obligation to respect their ideals, declarations, and actions.

It's exactly all of that.

Please show your working out, unless you want us to take from this that incredulity and low regard are insulting.

That 'people of faith' (right on sista!) don't like their religion or religious authorities to be criticised, challenged, ridiculed, or disrespected is not surprising, particularly when the pragmatic orthodoxy of religion is actually to disavow the rights of anyone to criticise, challenge, ridicule, disrespect, disregard their faith, or disbelieve their assertions, and to claim to be incited to offence and fury whenever it arises. Nonetheless, getting cross with atheists does not make any of those things insults - despite the self-asserted goose-gandery which you say makes it a kind of moral obligation to insult the people the religious say they are insulted and offended by.

The quid pro quoness of the Atheist orthodoxy only reinforces its religious orthodoxological and non-rational nature.

When was the last time you insulted a 'person of faith' for insulting an atheist or their disbelief I wonder?

The last time I heard one do so, which was not recently.

What? You mean you don't scour the religious messageboards to deliver the requisite lessons in rationality and humility? I am disappointed. Personally I find your opinions on atheism very insulting - I hope you're going to give yourself a good talking to.

[Forty Two]

If she recovered in defiance of all modern medical expectations and understandings, very possibly. What's your explanation for her recovery?

I don't know.

Me neither.

Well, you know, any sufficiently advanced medical technology is indistinguishable from magic..... (and what that quote from A.C.C. means is that while it is "indistinguishable" from magic, it isn't magic.

Exactly! It's about knowledge and perception, and the key here is that our lack of knowledge and our biased perceptions have no effect on the object of knowledge...unless you're a Schroedingerist.

Yes, so the chiropractor and the family should understand that what appears miraculous to them is probably not. That's that A.C.C. meant when he wrote that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

It's not science that's wrong. It's the chiropractor. Science says "I don't know." The chiropractor says "I do know, and it's magic."......

[Seth]

Yes, so the chiropractor and the family should understand that what appears miraculous to them is probably not.

Unless they know something you don't.

That's that A.C.C. meant when he wrote that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Indeed.

It's not science that's wrong. It's the chiropractor. Science says "I don't know." The chiropractor says "I do know, and it's magic."......

If science says "I don't know" why do I have such problems getting anyone here to actually say that? And he didn't say "it's magic", he said it was divine intervention, which may not be "magic" but may in fact be sufficiently advanced technology.

And the chiropractor is very likely wrong, but that's not really relevant because it's not the chiropractor's analysis that I'm discussing here, it's the analysis of Atheists.

[Forty Two]

Yes, so the chiropractor and the family should understand that what appears miraculous to them is probably not.

Unless they know something you don't.

Remember, this was related to ACC's quote about how any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You raised that in relation to this incident, and you did so to show that "science" could be wrong. Of course, what it really says is those who ascribe things to magic have to bear in mind that it may be technology that we don't understand.

Applying that to the case at hand, the chiropractor has encountered something he cannot explain, except to declare that it MUST BE god. He does not say he has some information that he hasn't disclosed. He simply says that since the girl recovered, it must be divine intervention. Using the ACC quote, it is he that should be mindful that it may be "indistinguishable from" a miracle.

As far as "splaining" the story, "unless they know something I don't" is a non sequitur, because it is not disclosed in the fact pattern. If the article stated "...and the chiropractor and family claimed to have personal knowledge of miracle, and have not merely concluded based on the amazing recovery itself that it was a miracle," then your point would be relevant. But, it since it isn't, I take the facts as they are presented.

If you wish to change the fact pattern to add some additional personal knowledge on the part of the chiropractor and family, then in order to evaluate it or "splain" it, I will need to know what that "something" that they know is. If all you do is add that they may know something I don't, then am left with a wide array of logical possibilities as to what that something might be (could be anything). And, I have no way to examine whether it is persuasive or not. Maybe what they "know" is doubtful or disputable. Maybe what they "know" is not what they think it is. I don't know. I can't even begin to deal with it.

That's that A.C.C. meant when he wrote that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Indeed.

O.k..... not sure why you are agreeing there, since it is the opposite of what you presented the quote for. Applying the quote to this situation, the medical recovery is amazing and even "indistinguishable from magic." Not that it IS magic. It's only indistinguishable (to us) from magic. Like, a Dark Age farmer encountering an iPhone. He might think it was magic, or the work of a god or devil. But, it's not, it's just the work of man. And, he might see someone take a pill and recover from a deadly disease and think that it's the work of the Almighty, but it was modern medicine. And, he might see someone die, but then wake up, by the grace of god (even when the person had actually slipped into a coma and then woke up naturally, and not due to a god).

That's the "Splanation," Seth. "I don't know how the girl recovered, but I suspect it's natural causes because to suggest divine intervention is to, essentially, suggest that it's magic."

It's not science that's wrong. It's the chiropractor. Science says "I don't know." The chiropractor says "I do know, and it's magic."......

If science says "I don't know" why do I have such problems getting anyone here to actually say that?

You don't. I've said it since day one, and almost everyone here commenting has said it in one way or another. Nobody knows how she recovered. We weren't there. We aren't doctors. The chiropractor and the family say they know, and they say it was divine intervention. And, the only reason given for saying that is "the doctors can't explain it, but she recovered, so.... divine intervention." In any other context, Seth, you'd shoot that argument down as the complete irrational and illogical tripe that it is. However, here, you simply throw out there that "maybe they know something that we don't." Well, that's a big maybe - that's a big "unless" -- the question is not whether it's possible for people to know things that other people don't -- we all know that is true. The question is whether they DO know something we don't. And, the article says what they knew, and that's what we've been asked to explain. Nothing in the article alludes to any hidden knowledge.

And he didn't say "it's magic", he said it was divine intervention, which may not be "magic" but may in fact be sufficiently advanced technology.

If it's just sufficiently advanced technology, then it's not divine. God, particularly, the Christian one, is not defined by as an advanced technology. If it's a technology, then it's not a deity, it's just a device we don't yet understand.

And the chiropractor is very likely wrong, but that's not really relevant because it's not the chiropractor's analysis that I'm discussing here, it's the analysis of Atheists.

No no. That is extremely relevant. That's part of the explanation. "I don't know how the girl recovered, but the chiropractor is very likely wrong.

You can discuss whatever you want, but you're baiting and switching. You asked for an explanation as to the event recounted in the article. You apparently agree with the analysis of atheists here on this thread. You, however, take issue with other aspects of some group you say you define as "Atheists" with a capital A which does not include all atheists, but includes atheists who have certain other beliefs involved (kind of like a different version of Atheism+). That's fine for you to take issue with whatever you like, but it is different from what you asked initially.

Lots of supposed atheists piss me off too -- the Atheist Plus group, for example, are bunch of little monsters, as far as I've encountered. Awful, really awful people. So, there are atheists who are unpalatable folks, irrational, mean-spirited and mendacious. However, there are so few of them around. Compared to theists who are irrational, mean-spirited and mendacious, they are infinitessimally small in number.

[Seth]

Yes, so the chiropractor and the family should understand that what appears miraculous to them is probably not.

Unless they know something you don't.

Remember, this was related to ACC's quote about how any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You raised that in relation to this incident, and you did so to show that "science" could be wrong. Of course, what it really says is those who ascribe things to magic have to bear in mind that it may be technology that we don't understand.

Of course. But the obverse may also be true, it may be "magic," not sufficiently advanced technology. This is because there is no scientific evidence that "magic" does not exist.

Applying that to the case at hand, the chiropractor has encountered something he cannot explain, except to declare that it MUST BE god. He does not say he has some information that he hasn't disclosed. He simply says that since the girl recovered, it must be divine intervention. Using the ACC quote, it is he that should be mindful that it may be "indistinguishable from" a miracle.

Just because he doesn't say it doesn't mean it might not be the case. Certainly he should be mindful of other possible causes, which is what makes his declaration an irrational one, as I have stated many times. That doesn't excuse irrationality on the part of Atheists in rebutting his statements.

As far as "splaining" the story, "unless they know something I don't" is a non sequitur, because it is not disclosed in the fact pattern. If the article stated "...and the chiropractor and family claimed to have personal knowledge of miracle, and have not merely concluded based on the amazing recovery itself that it was a miracle," then your point would be relevant. But, it since it isn't, I take the facts as they are presented.

But you falsely presume that the facts presented represent all the facts about the event that occurred, and furthermore you appear to be judging what facts that have been presented based only on the claims made by the reporter in quoting the individual involved. That's not scholarship, that's credulity.

If you wish to change the fact pattern to add some additional personal knowledge on the part of the chiropractor and family, then in order to evaluate it or "splain" it, I will need to know what that "something" that they know is.

Then go and ask them.

If all you do is add that they may know something I don't, then am left with a wide array of logical possibilities as to what that something might be (could be anything).

Indeed you are, and therein lies the point of the OP.

And, I have no way to examine whether it is persuasive or not.

No, you have no convenient and easy way to so examine the matter and you have chosen not to inquire further into the matter on your own because you don't want to. That's something completely different from having "no way to examine whether it is persuasive or not." Your unwillingness to investigate the claims merely points to your own lack of interest in investigating the claims and your lack of interest in no way affects the truth of the claims presented.

Maybe what they "know" is doubtful or disputable. Maybe what they "know" is not what they think it is. I don't know. I can't even begin to deal with it.

Because you don't want to deal with it. Or perhaps you are physically or mentally incapable of doing so, I don't know. But your incapacity does not change anything other than your understanding of the issue. Thus, we arrive at the same conclusion I've been stating all along, you don't know whether it was a miracle or something else, and you don't care to expend the effort to find out the truth, so your only rational statement is "I don't know."

That's that A.C.C. meant when he wrote that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Indeed.

O.k..... not sure why you are agreeing there, since it is the opposite of what you presented the quote for. Applying the quote to this situation, the medical recovery is amazing and even "indistinguishable from magic." Not that it IS magic. It's only indistinguishable (to us) from magic. Like, a Dark Age farmer encountering an iPhone. He might think it was magic, or the work of a god or devil. But, it's not, it's just the work of man. And, he might see someone take a pill and recover from a deadly disease and think that it's the work of the Almighty, but it was modern medicine. And, he might see someone die, but then wake up, by the grace of god (even when the person had actually slipped into a coma and then woke up naturally, and not due to a god).

That's the "Splanation," Seth. "I don't know how the girl recovered, but I suspect it's natural causes because to suggest divine intervention is to, essentially, suggest that it's magic."

And what is your rational, critically-robust scientific evidence that it's not "magic?"

It's not science that's wrong. It's the chiropractor. Science says "I don't know." The chiropractor says "I do know, and it's magic."......

If science says "I don't know" why do I have such problems getting anyone here to actually say that?

You don't.

Of course I do.

I've said it since day one, and almost everyone here commenting has said it in one way or another.

They've all qualified their "I don't know" with all sorts of irrational mumbo-jumbo, and so have you.

Nobody knows how she recovered. We weren't there. We aren't doctors.

Indeed. Nor are you gods.

The chiropractor and the family say they know, and they say it was divine intervention. And, the only reason given for saying that is "the doctors can't explain it, but she recovered, so.... divine intervention." In any other context, Seth, you'd shoot that argument down as the complete irrational and illogical tripe that it is.

And I have repeatedly stated that his conclusions are irrational. That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the OP however.

However, here, you simply throw out there that "maybe they know something that we don't." Well, that's a big maybe - that's a big "unless" -- the question is not whether it's possible for people to know things that other people don't -- we all know that is true. The question is whether they DO know something we don't. And, the article says what they knew, and that's what we've been asked to explain. Nothing in the article alludes to any hidden knowledge.[/quote]

So what? Did I restrict your investigation to what is found in the article? Nope. All I've been saying is that in the absence of critically robust scientific evidence as to the mechanism of the girl's recovery, the only rational statement anyone can make is "I don't know." Anything else, and by that I mean anything at all, is an irrational statement.

And he didn't say "it's magic", he said it was divine intervention, which may not be "magic" but may in fact be sufficiently advanced technology.

If it's just sufficiently advanced technology, then it's not divine.

How do you know that?

God, particularly, the Christian one, is not defined by as an advanced technology.

Perfect and concise iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy. What if Christians are wrong about God and God is actually merely a sufficiently advanced technology?

If it's a technology, then it's not a deity, it's just a device we don't yet understand.

Why can't it be a technological deity? What is it about deity that precludes it being technological or "natural?"

And the chiropractor is very likely wrong, but that's not really relevant because it's not the chiropractor's analysis that I'm discussing here, it's the analysis of Atheists.

No no. That is extremely relevant. That's part of the explanation. "I don't know how the girl recovered, but the chiropractor is very likely wrong.

And now you temporize, which is good. You're admitting that you don't know, but you still insist on judging the chiropractor's claim based on your personal ideological and intellectual biases that do not allow you to just say "I don't know" and leave it at that. You simply MUST imply that the chiropractor is wrong because you do not believe in God or divine intervention and you cannot bring yourself to admit that you don't know that either. You simply must insert some sort of qualification that indicates your skepticism about God and divine intervention even though you have absolutely no rational or scientific evidence that God does not exist and does not divinely intervene. But the fact remains that you simply don't know what happened or why, and you also don't know if the chiropractor's claims are true or not. You have exactly zero actual critically-robust scientific facts upon which to base ANY conclusion about the events described, and therefore your ONLY rational response is "I don't know." And that is precisely the point I'm made when I posted the OP.

You can discuss whatever you want, but you're baiting and switching. You asked for an explanation as to the event recounted in the article. You apparently agree with the analysis of atheists here on this thread. You, however, take issue with other aspects of some group you say you define as "Atheists" with a capital A which does not include all atheists, but includes atheists who have certain other beliefs involved (kind of like a different version of Atheism+). That's fine for you to take issue with whatever you like, but it is different from what you asked initially.

Not really. The OP asked Atheists to explain the events cited using the standards of scientific evidence and rational thinking that Atheists require of others with respect to such claims. No one, not you, not me, not the chiropractor and not anybody else has been able to do so. And that is my point. No one has, and no one can do so at this point, especially not Atheists. They cannot apply their own standards of scientific investigation and rational conclusion to this event. Moreover, they REFUSE to acknowledge this fact and they refuse to simply admit that they don't know what happened. Just as you do, they have to add some qualifier...or insult...about theistic claims and either state outright or imply that such claims cannot be and are not true, just as you do. But they do so without a shred of actual evidence to their own standards of that claim, and thus they are drawing irrational conclusions based on their own biases and religious orthodoxy.

Lots of supposed atheists piss me off too -- the Atheist Plus group, for example, are bunch of little monsters, as far as I've encountered. Awful, really awful people. So, there are atheists who are unpalatable folks, irrational, mean-spirited and mendacious. However, there are so few of them around. Compared to theists who are irrational, mean-spirited and mendacious, they are infinitessimally small in number.

Well, yes, they are comparatively few and far between as opposed to theists, but they are infinitely more ideologically and religiously annoying than any theist I've ever actually met, who are in my experience very nice people who care about others, care for them, and act in very socially-appropriate ways when I'm around them. Therefore, I wouldn't give Atheists a thumbs-up over theists in general, but I will admit that there are certain theists who are far, far less rational than most Atheists I'm acquainted with. But I'd also say that the number of them I'm aware of is small compared to the arrogant, self-righteous ass-hats who are proudly Atheist I'm aware of.

[Forty Two]

Yes, so the chiropractor and the family should understand that what appears miraculous to them is probably not.

Unless they know something you don't.

Remember, this was related to ACC's quote about how any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You raised that in relation to this incident, and you did so to show that "science" could be wrong. Of course, what it really says is those who ascribe things to magic have to bear in mind that it may be technology that we don't understand.

Of course. But the obverse may also be true, it may be "magic," not sufficiently advanced technology. This is because there is no scientific evidence that "magic" does not exist.

How do you know there is no scientific evidence that magic does not exist?

[Forty Two]

Applying that to the case at hand, the chiropractor has encountered something he cannot explain, except to declare that it MUST BE god. He does not say he has some information that he hasn't disclosed. He simply says that since the girl recovered, it must be divine intervention. Using the ACC quote, it is he that should be mindful that it may be "indistinguishable from" a miracle.

Just because he doesn't say it doesn't mean it might not be the case. Certainly he should be mindful of other possible causes, which is what makes his declaration an irrational one, as I have stated many times. That doesn't excuse irrationality on the part of Atheists in rebutting his statements.

Which Atheist rebuttals are you referring to?

Of course, just because he doesn't say it doesn't mean it "might not be the case." However, you asked us to "splain" this event as recounted in the article, not some other event and not this event plus speculative facts added by us after the fact.

And, you've really just splained it -- we don't know how the girl recovered, but the chiro and the family were irrational for saying that it must be divine intervention. They have to be mindful that it could be other causes. Done. That's the explanation.

So, it's been splained. If you want to quote an atheist that you believe has espoused an irrational rebuttal, please quote it or link to it. We can then discuss the rebuttal. Until then, your generalized reference to Atheists who engage in irrational rebutting is just a general slur and not an argument or a reference to specific argument.

[Forty Two]

As far as "splaining" the story, "unless they know something I don't" is a non sequitur, because it is not disclosed in the fact pattern. If the article stated "...and the chiropractor and family claimed to have personal knowledge of miracle, and have not merely concluded based on the amazing recovery itself that it was a miracle," then your point would be relevant. But, it since it isn't, I take the facts as they are presented.

But you falsely presume that the facts presented represent all the facts about the event that occurred, and furthermore you appear to be judging what facts that have been presented based only on the claims made by the reporter in quoting the individual involved. That's not scholarship, that's credulity.

I do not presume that the facts presented represent all the facts about the actual event, if any, that occurred. I presume that you presented the facts (because you posted the OP). I presume that you asked for explanations, because that is the title of the thread. I ASSUME the truth of what you posted, because that is required in order to evaluate and explain it.

It doesn't help for me to say "I don't believe the girl recovered," or "I think the chiropractor may have sad some other things that were not set forth in the article." That would just be taking the question and changing it to suit myself. No, I properly accepted your question as posed, and explained it, as posed. If you wish to change the fact pattern, I will address it as changed.

If I were to change the facts to add things to it that were not reported, I would be dishonest, not scholarly. How am I to know what the chiropractor really said? And, if he said something different than what was recounted in the article, why would you ask us to explain the article?

I mean, if you post an article about a car accident, and ask us to explain it, and one of the witnesses said "the light was red," and the other witness said that the same light was green at the same time as the other witness claimed it to be red, well, I would explain that under stress people's testimony can vary and that often witnesses recount diametrically opposing views of the same fact or event. And, I would submit that claiming that it must be divine intervention which made the light look green to one witness and red to another at the same time is not a reasonable or rational thing to say or conclude.

You could respond all you want with other facts, such as, "you can't be sure that the light really wasn't yellow," but that would be just randomly adding facts to the question presented. That's not scholarly at all. It's irrational at best, and at worst dishonest.

If you wish to change the fact pattern to add some additional personal knowledge on the part of the chiropractor and family, then in order to evaluate it or "splain" it, I will need to know what that "something" that they know is.

Then go and ask them.

If all you do is add that they may know something I don't, then am left with a wide array of logical possibilities as to what that something might be (could be anything).

Indeed you are, and therein lies the point of the OP.

And, I have no way to examine whether it is persuasive or not.

No, you have no convenient and easy way to so examine the matter and you have chosen not to inquire further into the matter on your own because you don't want to. That's something completely different from having "no way to examine whether it is persuasive or not." Your unwillingness to investigate the claims merely points to your own lack of interest in investigating the claims and your lack of interest in no way affects the truth of the claims presented.

Maybe what they "know" is doubtful or disputable. Maybe what they "know" is not what they think it is. I don't know. I can't even begin to deal with it.

Because you don't want to deal with it. Or perhaps you are physically or mentally incapable of doing so, I don't know. But your incapacity does not change anything other than your understanding of the issue. Thus, we arrive at the same conclusion I've been stating all along, you don't know whether it was a miracle or something else, and you don't care to expend the effort to find out the truth, so your only rational statement is "I don't know."

That's that A.C.C. meant when he wrote that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Indeed.

O.k..... not sure why you are agreeing there, since it is the opposite of what you presented the quote for. Applying the quote to this situation, the medical recovery is amazing and even "indistinguishable from magic." Not that it IS magic. It's only indistinguishable (to us) from magic. Like, a Dark Age farmer encountering an iPhone. He might think it was magic, or the work of a god or devil. But, it's not, it's just the work of man. And, he might see someone take a pill and recover from a deadly disease and think that it's the work of the Almighty, but it was modern medicine. And, he might see someone die, but then wake up, by the grace of god (even when the person had actually slipped into a coma and then woke up naturally, and not due to a god).

That's the "Splanation," Seth. "I don't know how the girl recovered, but I suspect it's natural causes because to suggest divine intervention is to, essentially, suggest that it's magic."

And what is your rational, critically-robust scientific evidence that it's not "magic?"

It's not science that's wrong. It's the chiropractor. Science says "I don't know." The chiropractor says "I do know, and it's magic."......

If science says "I don't know" why do I have such problems getting anyone here to actually say that?

You don't.

Of course I do.

I've said it since day one, and almost everyone here commenting has said it in one way or another.

They've all qualified their "I don't know" with all sorts of irrational mumbo-jumbo, and so have you.

Nobody knows how she recovered. We weren't there. We aren't doctors.

Indeed. Nor are you gods.

The chiropractor and the family say they know, and they say it was divine intervention. And, the only reason given for saying that is "the doctors can't explain it, but she recovered, so.... divine intervention." In any other context, Seth, you'd shoot that argument down as the complete irrational and illogical tripe that it is.

And I have repeatedly stated that his conclusions are irrational. That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the OP however.

However, here, you simply throw out there that "maybe they know something that we don't." Well, that's a big maybe - that's a big "unless" -- the question is not whether it's possible for people to know things that other people don't -- we all know that is true. The question is whether they DO know something we don't. And, the article says what they knew, and that's what we've been asked to explain. Nothing in the article alludes to any hidden knowledge.[/quote]

So what? Did I restrict your investigation to what is found in the article? Nope. All I've been saying is that in the absence of critically robust scientific evidence as to the mechanism of the girl's recovery, the only rational statement anyone can make is "I don't know." Anything else, and by that I mean anything at all, is an irrational statement.

And he didn't say "it's magic", he said it was divine intervention, which may not be "magic" but may in fact be sufficiently advanced technology.

If it's just sufficiently advanced technology, then it's not divine.

How do you know that?

God, particularly, the Christian one, is not defined by as an advanced technology.

Perfect and concise iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy. What if Christians are wrong about God and God is actually merely a sufficiently advanced technology?

If it's a technology, then it's not a deity, it's just a device we don't yet understand.

Why can't it be a technological deity? What is it about deity that precludes it being technological or "natural?"

And the chiropractor is very likely wrong, but that's not really relevant because it's not the chiropractor's analysis that I'm discussing here, it's the analysis of Atheists.

No no. That is extremely relevant. That's part of the explanation. "I don't know how the girl recovered, but the chiropractor is very likely wrong.

And now you temporize, which is good. You're admitting that you don't know, but you still insist on judging the chiropractor's claim based on your personal ideological and intellectual biases that do not allow you to just say "I don't know" and leave it at that. You simply MUST imply that the chiropractor is wrong because you do not believe in God or divine intervention and you cannot bring yourself to admit that you don't know that either. You simply must insert some sort of qualification that indicates your skepticism about God and divine intervention even though you have absolutely no rational or scientific evidence that God does not exist and does not divinely intervene. But the fact remains that you simply don't know what happened or why, and you also don't know if the chiropractor's claims are true or not. You have exactly zero actual critically-robust scientific facts upon which to base ANY conclusion about the events described, and therefore your ONLY rational response is "I don't know." And that is precisely the point I'm made when I posted the OP.

You can discuss whatever you want, but you're baiting and switching. You asked for an explanation as to the event recounted in the article. You apparently agree with the analysis of atheists here on this thread. You, however, take issue with other aspects of some group you say you define as "Atheists" with a capital A which does not include all atheists, but includes atheists who have certain other beliefs involved (kind of like a different version of Atheism+). That's fine for you to take issue with whatever you like, but it is different from what you asked initially.

Not really. The OP asked Atheists to explain the events cited using the standards of scientific evidence and rational thinking that Atheists require of others with respect to such claims. No one, not you, not me, not the chiropractor and not anybody else has been able to do so. And that is my point. No one has, and no one can do so at this point, especially not Atheists. They cannot apply their own standards of scientific investigation and rational conclusion to this event. Moreover, they REFUSE to acknowledge this fact and they refuse to simply admit that they don't know what happened. Just as you do, they have to add some qualifier...or insult...about theistic claims and either state outright or imply that such claims cannot be and are not true, just as you do. But they do so without a shred of actual evidence to their own standards of that claim, and thus they are drawing irrational conclusions based on their own biases and religious orthodoxy.

Lots of supposed atheists piss me off too -- the Atheist Plus group, for example, are bunch of little monsters, as far as I've encountered. Awful, really awful people. So, there are atheists who are unpalatable folks, irrational, mean-spirited and mendacious. However, there are so few of them around. Compared to theists who are irrational, mean-spirited and mendacious, they are infinitessimally small in number.

Well, yes, they are comparatively few and far between as opposed to theists, but they are infinitely more ideologically and religiously annoying than any theist I've ever actually met, who are in my experience very nice people who care about others, care for them, and act in very socially-appropriate ways when I'm around them. Therefore, I wouldn't give Atheists a thumbs-up over theists in general, but I will admit that there are certain theists who are far, far less rational than most Atheists I'm acquainted with. But I'd also say that the number of them I'm aware of is small compared to the arrogant, self-righteous ass-hats who are proudly Atheist I'm aware of.[/quote]