scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

I do not believe in miracles or the supernatural... fortunately Pro created this debate with the word "apparently", which suits me just fine. It is no surprise that we hear more about the sort of thing that might seem like a miracle from those in the supernatural camp; there is, of course, nothing demonstrably miraculous that has ever been shown to be true - but those invested in religious faith or their particular favourite brand of woo like to make big of stories about ghosts, past lives, crystal healing, spiritual healing, messages from the other side, miracle cures, etc.I repeat that there is an inherent (and unalienable) burden of proof for Pro to provide reliable evidence that miraculous things actually happen to the faithful AND that such things do not naturally occur, with special emphasis on showing that atheists have shorter life expectancies because they never have wonderful miracle cures happen to them; I suspect that Pro will not be able to live up to this burden because the claim is patently ludicrous - but it does follow from the debate's title.Pro would like to shift the burden of proof to me to disprove the assertion so, to be fair, I'll shoulder some of that in providing the specific sort of evidence that Pro requests; note that I have already mentioned terminally ill cancer patients making remarkable recoveries and even achieving remission and decades of life where doctors had written them off to a few months' of life remaining. It is interesting that Pro concedes that recovering from terminal cancer is "medically known" and, therefore, can be written off as non-miraculous. I'd like to know what hoop Pro would like me jump through, though, specifically: if recovering from terminal cancer cannot be seen as miraculous but regrowing amputated limbs is asking too much (Pro's defense that God will only perform second-rate miracles so as to leave much to faith is laughable at best), what sort of thing would Pro accept? Well, let's look at the examples that Pro has given and find their match, that seems like a path to a resounding win that even Pro would have to accept.Pro did not, in fact, give any examples! Sure, there were some examples in the one link that Pro provided that worked... I guess I should start there. Dr Richard H. Casdorph wrote a book in the seventies that is now out of print, not mentioned on Wikipedia and can be purchased for the princely sum of one cent from Amazon [1]. For me to take this as a valid and important source of evidence is asking a bit much, but I'll play along...Dr. Casdorph provides 10 examples in his book and these are neatly summarised in Pro's link. The first example is a miracle recovery from cancer, which I am now led to believe is inadmissable by Pro - you can't have your cake and eat it!The second example is a recovery from rheumatoid artherirtis; even Dr. Casdorph admits that spontaneous remission is relatively commonplace - the miracle here, apparently, is the speed with which this recovery happened and the best evidence we have for the speed of recovery is reported by the patient, Elfrieda Stauffer (not mentioned in Pro's link), herself... and this is obviously subject to the placebo effect, quite independently of the strong pressure from her devout husband, their congregation and the organisers of the "healing meeting". I won't even waste the gentle reader's time offering a hundred examples of spontaneous remission from RA, since even Pro's staunchest ally, Dr. Casdorph, agrees that they are not unheard of.Example the third: Marie Rosenberger had a malignant brain tumour; she had surgery but not all of it could be removed - at first, it started growing back but then somebody said the right magic prayer to the right deity, Pro would have you believe, and it slowly disappeared. Okay, so... are there any examples of atheists who have malignant brain tumours that spontanously disappear? Sure are! Does Pro really need me to find evidence of self-identifying atheists who have experienced this common-enough remission? That wouldn't be fair, since "malignant tumour" = "cancer"... but it's safe to say that there have been tens of thousands of such occurrences in atheists...I'm getting bored now. I'm not going to go through all of the other examples in this painstaking way (I'm putting way more effort in here than Pro, who is simply linking to a poor summary of the works of an evangelical doctor from nearly half a century ago).I maintain that Pro hasn't come anywhere close to meeting their burden of proof; nor has Pro made it clear precisely what we are to be talking about (why link to examples where the plurality are cancer-related and then dismiss my argument about cancer because it's "medically known"!?).Here's my challenge for the final round: Pro, pick one, two or three specific examples of "miracle" cures in theists and I'll demonstrate either the likely falsity of your miracle claim or examples of similar "miracles" in atheists. Note that this is going to be harder for me because atheists do not generally make a big song and a dance of their lack of blind faith, nor do they go out of their way to claim miracles where there are none. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, spends lots of its ill-gotten gains searching for miraculous stories (as either Pro's or my first round makes clear) to bolster its supernatural claims... but it's obviously an investment that they are prepared to make, a "lost leader" that they will recover in the years to come from the gullible followers who gladly pay a tithe to mother church.Pro, can you not see the irony of telling me that I haven't provided a valid example when you have not done so yourself? It's YOUR debate... YOU are the one making claims... YOU are demanding to be the arbiter of what will or will not count... so it's ONLY FAIR that you give an example of a miracle theistic cure to set the bar and let me know exactly what I've got to find an example of. I'd really rather that you picked one for the final round, that way we can explore it in the detail that such a claim would deserve.Just out of interest, though... if you really do believe the line you fed us about God not wanting to pull an A-grade miracle because it would not leave room for that most noble of virtues, blind faith... if you really do believe that then don't you realise that you've essentially boxed yourself out of winning this debate? You are essentially admitting that any miracle you can find will have an element of doubt about the miraculousness... which leaves me to wonder how you could possibly hope to win, unless you can show that faith healing initiatives work better than chance alone, or that theists with terminal illnesses have measurably better life expectancies than atheists with similar diagnoses (and I double dare you to try to do that!).[1] http://www.amazon.com...