miracles occur, but almost never to atheists

"con is just letting all his bad arguments sweep under the carpet, things like asking me to show how often miracles etc.." Uh, miss, that was part of the premise of your debate. "things that are irrelvant he doesn't bring up again, and ignores." Well, yea, if a point is irrelevant to he debate, there's no point to debating it. "he also ignores the point he made that we define miracle as highly unlikely, instead of scientifically inexplicable appearing supenatural" I was stating that if you were to argue miracle in the sense of highly extraordinary event, that sort of miracle happens to atheists too, as opposed to the definition of miracle as divine intervention, which you appeared to use for most of this debate. "i shown in another debate an example of a miracle that was used for the beatification of a saint in the catholic church." No source cited (you didn't mention which debate you are referring to here). Even if I were to accept your premise that a miracle occurred (which I don't- there are many other explanations for supposed miracles, such as: the story was created out of whole cloth, the story was real but it did not happen the way it was written down, or the person who reported the story was delusional and could not tell what is real from what isn't) you still haven't gotten any closer to demonstrating the second part of your proposition. "i also told you of the retina example. you are tying to argue plausbility, an alterantive explanation. problem is human eyes aren't like most eyes, and it's still inexpcliable, and apeparing supenatural. there might be an alt reason, but it remains to be seen if it's true." First off, I demonstrated by example of the Euglena that a retina is not required for sight. Second off, if you are asserting that a human has seen without having a functional retina or equivalent thereof, you should have provided sources. As it stands, you are asserting that an event happened which you cannot demonstrate, and asking me to prove you wrong. "if i had my arm cut off, and it grew back after i prayed.... and you said it wasn't a miracle, how much will it take to convince you?" Before saying that it's a miracle, you should demonstrate that it is. Numerous magicians have apparently sawed an assistant apart before putting them back together, alive and well. There are no humans who have been truly sawed in half, had their their halves separated, and than put back together, still alive. There is a track record of this happening in magic tricks[1][2][3] and not real life, thus, if you saw someone sawed in half and then put back together still alive, it would be more reasonable to believe that the whole thing was a magic trick. Likewise, if someone claimed that they lost an arm and then grew it back, it might be wise to check to see if they are genuine. If a peddler were to claim that there was a track record of arms growing back if you buy/use his product, it is on him to demonstrate that his product is genuine. "plus at the end of the day, im showing examples of things that fit my definition of miracle and most definitions... and still to this moment, youve yet to show an example happening to atheists." You haven't shown a track record of this happening, you've asserted it. Since you're affirming a resolution that is absolute, the BOP is on you. "you jsut say what i said in the beinging post, that they wouldnt call it a miracle is it's ignored. maybe, but you should be abel to find at least one example of something that woulda been called a miracle had it happened to a theist." Again, I don't have BOP, and my argument was not that miracles did or did not happen to atheists. But for the sake of argument; the "miraculous" birth of Kim Jong Il, "miraculous" recoveries from injuries, "miraculous" military victories, etc. "it was a simple request, and you've yet to show anything." Your resolution was "miracles occur, but almost never to atheists", and you were affirming this. You do not get to claim that you are automatically correct unless proven wrong. You made assertions such as "what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example." without any support. You have failed to back up a single claim of yours in this debate with evidence, despite having the Burden of Proof. [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly...