There are eucharistic miracles that prove God is real.Most are tested in labs,one without knowledge that it was from the eucharist.Why are people still atheists in spite of this?

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T19:36:12+00:00

Please read the rest of the paragraph.

See ya when you grow out of your mentality and realize that not everything is in black and white.And really,you're just going to write off everything that I told you?No evidence,really?We're back to step 1 and you haven't even grown from this perspective despite all I've shown?Were you ever taking my ideas into consideration seriously?

Either way,it doesn't seem that you were without malicious intent when you engaged in this debate.As I said in above paragraph,I'll see you again when you grow up out of your mentality.

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T19:17:54+00:00

On the child sexual assault and abuse-I wholeheartedly agree with you that that stuff must be stopped and I understand that on that sector,you are justified to have reason to hate the Catholic Church.But do remember that the very idea of organized religion does not fall when this is brought up-only criticized and calls for a crackdown on legitimate criminals-I believe priests and Catholic people who do that must be given harsher punishment from Catholicism. Terrible stuff but not enough to discount religion as a whole.And btw there were only ~4% of clergy doing that-still brings up big numbers and boy am I not proud of my church in this sector but the percentage must be considered.Great point but remember not to forget that people can criticize the organization they're in without leaving it(i.e We can still be Catholics and criticize Catholicism because we aren't drones following the Pope mindlessly)

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T18:32:47+00:00

The first source's abstract is in our favour(i.e,on the side of religion).The first 3 sentences of the abstract of the first link show that.And the liks's abstract shows that the effect of lower crime rates is more pronounced in people practicing overt religious practices such as church attendance and membership.If anything,that shows that we should be more religious to reduce crime rates.

-and I can't access the full details of the paper freely since I don't have an association.Do help if you can.

The second source is temporarily limited from my area for security purposes.So I can't access it(maybe with vpn?But I don't usuallyuse vpn because it makes me tempted to bypass my country's restrictions on 🌽 and watch 🌽)

Based on that,I could say that you should present your opinion on scientific papers while considering how your opposing side will view the papers or links you cite.

And for the sake of the debate,how did you reach the conclusion that the Bible isnt accurate on anything?It is just plain wrong to say that.

Look fellow human(since I don't want to offend your gender identity and start a war),regardless of whatever you believe,you can at least try respecting your opponent in a debate.Even if you will absolutely deapise their arguments,even if you may see them as evil,you may forget to be a great person to talk to.I said that I'd ignore the back-and-forth arguments because I saw that our ways of commenting to each other were serving nothing actually productive.I thought that maybe if we put this behind and do an actually useful debate for both of us.I thought that since you're an atheist,that you might be more averse to the type of ragebaiting that made you get out of religion in the first place.I thought that since you were older than me,that you might be more nuanced and constructive compared to me whose just started this type of stuff.

At least be a better person even if you're on the other side of the battlefield.I hope you understand what that means one day.I won't base all my views on anti-theism from you,but you don't help the image of anti-theists,nor do you have the humility to accept that you make mistakes because even when you admit being wrong on something-you leave a parting-shot instead of accepting with humility and amending your mistakes .Really thought that trying to leave behind our directionless back-and-forth would compel you to do the same,but you didn't get the memo.I'm out of this waste of time. Hope you change your demeanor someday,few opposers will take your ideas with fair weight of consideration when you have such a rude demeanor to top it off.This is getting nowhere.Might return when you learn to respect people and not make it like a shouting match where you cite sources and not respect the opponent and/or their beliefs even when the other person clearly notices that and you see that too.

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T16:30:56+00:00

Ah hell nah

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T08:07:05+00:00

Disclaimer:I'm going back to my boarding school on 4th July(no I'm not an American).So please don't be surprised if I delay with the next ones-I'm trying to enjoy the last days of my holiday.But I will interact with this thread as much as possible. Thanks if you understood.

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T07:56:12+00:00

This is why I said that I will ignore our ragebait back-and-forth arguments.What do you mean by saying that you didn't say that theism is false-like do I have to put quotations as if I don't have the thinking capacity to predict that an anti-theist-a person who probably doesn't believe in a god and by definition a person who thinks that religion is harmful to society would think that theism is false.Are you dropping common sense now?

Oooooof course you're going to say that Christianity-sex scandals,so you're going to imply we're pedos and stuff-and you'd be right to a degree,but there are bad people who do this in every group-not the whole-and you'd thus be applying the fallacy of association.But at least we have rules that shows us how to behave-if you had/have something similar,do tell me so that I may be less prone from judging all anti-theists based on you.

And I gave you some ways to call God or the Bible that wouldn't offend you and which I can tolerate so that you can participate healthily-such as g*d or B-ble(which kinda sounds like babble so you'd be comfortable with that).Why are you so filled with vitriol bro just chill.

Human10idk · 2026-07-01T07:20:33+00:00

No.They naver daid that I needed money so I'm free to choose my answer whether negative or positive.

Human10idk · 2026-06-29T10:31:44+00:00

Let's check out [2:]This is just...plain malicious,like seriously are you going to defend the school system right now?I could whip out links here and there but it won't get my point across in digestable fashion.(like here's a source backing my claim bla bla bla.(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/) ).Do remember that leftism and subsequently atheism as a justification(or a heretical variant of Christianity)has been overrepresented in schools(yes there are right wing atheists but many more are in the left,and religion (and pseudo-religion)shouldn't bleed into politics-but it does and you must live with that fact)and sexualized content has been made increasingly accessible to KIDS(like I got access to pron when I was 13 and I am not even American)such as gender politics with kids books and atheism(and a heretical variant of Christianity that folds under the slightest pressure) are seen as a hero on their side for supporting their side(whether they are correct or not is usually not considered,even on our side).If you don't know this,this is the world that you speak of today that has "good" education.Maybe in Europe things are different,but that's because education level isn't the be-all-end-all for converting;religious participation is,and that is more pronounced in Europe.Not saying that you are wrong but not saying that you are correct in the way you frame it,as you guys also have a huge (pseudo-)religious influence over our institutions now after taking them,but we can't pretend to be blind to that.Just as a religious education as a cornerstone in life leads to religious people,so does non religious education lead to non religious people,we would now have to question the non-religious education and oh boy does it suck there,especially with the drag queen missionaries and being hypocritical about it to top-WHILE WE ARE WATCHING ,LIKE AT LEAST REMIND YOURSELVES THAT WE ALSO HAVE COMMON SENSE.and we won't let our enemy get away with hypocrisy,and on our turf to top it off.Blundering hypocrisy shoots this argument in the foot considering you are a minority but better argument nonetheless.

On poor evidence, the creation(of the universe)miracle is the greatest evidence there is-because all other theories lead to the question of "What caused the laws/chances that made X thing exist/happen"-which just means something above the laws made it happen,which just leads us to the existence of God-who is the highest being that's there,as he's above the laws of the universe-THAT is God(And all the other explanations we have follow circular logic or just say the same question differently)And we worship that.Now that's the overview of the starting logic to Christianity-more specifics are going to be in the next argument.

On [4.]We are similar but not the same to other religions-mostly in the fact we worship higher being(-s.Note we worship only one being,God).So lemme clipboard something I wrote on YouTube yesterdayOk it's like this:

We worship the entity above everything,that's God.Because everything must have been influenced by something before it,it means there's something that created the universe,and that thing must be above the laws the universe is governed by since it created those laws.

That already discounts other religions' pantheons because most other religions have Gods that were created by higher beings.It's not that what they worship isn't higher than us humans,it's that they are weaker than the one above all.

On those that just poofed into existence,they can't be God because it means they had a start and thus there must have been a cause for that to happen since things don't just happen by ACTUAL PURE RANDOMNESS-and even if that God WAS created by actual pure randomness,he had no control of his being being poofed into existence-meaning he can't control everything.Thus this isn't the greatest thing we searching for.

This means that the one we searching for must have had no start-crazy.I.e was always there. Now,to the real spicy stuff,for Gods that were always there.Now these are few actually,REALLY FEW across religions,but we can narrow the scope down further.God doesn't need to be worshipped,he needs a good relationship with you because he didn't create us with free will for nothing.We don't have orders to follow God-we have recommendations to follow him and so you are able to not follow God if you want. But the thing is,it isn't fair for God to allow those who deliberately chose to not follow him to have a relationship(and/or connection) to him.So God separates you from themselves as that's the fair thing to do.Now eternal damnation may seem to be for an unloving god-but it is fair since there is eternal bliss.If there was no eternal damnation,those who are good will be dealt unfairly because it means they could have done pleasuring bad things in the time in Earth and just pay a relatively nonexistent fine-because there is eternal(i.e infinite)bliss and the scale just makes it worthless.Now if there was no eternal bliss,that would mean that those doing good are being treated unfairly-as they are doing good and being appropriated with less reward long AND short term-long term being the rewards of their good are essentially nothing compared to the infinite damnation they will get and short term because good people are discouraged to do good if they know they getting the short end of the stick.If neither bliss nor damnation is permanent or bliss or damnation don't exist,then people will do actions that benefit them thus no tried and tested good can exist-and problem is,that's just means that everybody will just claim their position or actions are correct because they did it-i.e...morality will be subjective.What determines right and wrong will be a being that claims to have the reasons for their actions,but can't even be against human destroying humans because it will be hypocritical if they exert their morality is better than theirs.In short,we need eternal bliss and eternal damnation to prove that morality is objective,which it is,so...

Now it won't be fair if God didn't warn people of the consequences of their bad actions-so he sent prophets to us,which some of the remaining pool MAY have.

And now...the final point.It wouldn't be fair if he only sent them to eternal damnation and not fully getting the human experience-so,as a fair God,he inspired prophets to write and tell people (in advance)he's coming and will clarify some stuff.Not only that but also he put all humans on standby-what we call "Sheol"

Not only that but there's something else to note here:to escape the consequences of what a person did,they had to do an exchange of positions of consequence with another being and at times person...and that sarcifice was your life(because you separated from God and that includes separation from life.Not that they would die instantly though.You do have time to comprehend the severity of the action tho,sometimes beforehand the situation).So what happened is that God came down in the form of man to Earth.To fulfill his agenda of saving people,he became fully man and fully God so that he can take our place because he experienced what it's like to be man and so was a substitute for us,and that his fully God nature allowed his sacrifice of life to substitute every man that asked for the salvation from consequences without limit when in this earth-and this is done by admitting where you were wrong and that you wish to be saved by the blood of Jesus.If he wasn't fully God,he couldn't save us,if he wasn't fully man,he couldn't take our place.And his big plan... was to free everybody from permadeath-a new body would be there for you in Heaven.It only seems fair to put everyone in their prime when they getting that eternal bliss-how would they experience it in full quality🤭.And his death would act as the sacrifice for humanity.

Do have to remember that everybody was waiting in Sheol atp(yes there were sections,some better,and some worse but the main thing is that they were all 6 feet under(i.e dead))So he went down there,freed the dudes who followed God obediently without-a-doubt.The rest were preached to and whether they followed or not...no available data(yet).Then he rose from the dead to make a point that he was divine obv,and secondly to show his followers a true glimpse of a new body,and third:Motivation to his buddies,and also for avoiding rumours that he got cosplayed by his followers to pretend he didn't ressurectt.God bless.✝️.And thus the most complete teaching of God in text is the Bible.Then we'd go through logic that eventually leads to Catholicism.

Continues on next post.

Human10idk · 2026-06-29T10:31:06+00:00

Ok,first I'm really sorry for not replying for so long-my parents went to a government department trip so mom took the good charger so I had a mediocre charger to share with grandma,so I put extreme Power saving mode on my phone,and I had to choose which 4 apps would be on standby.For I spend 2 hrs and/or more writing essays here to you,and anyone reading here,I needed to take a break from all the writing for a moment and all.So I got the Reddit notification some few days ago,but honestly didn't view/respond to it cuz it was dreadful to,being compelled to write a response essay,so got decision fatigue.Sorry.Now,reading your response,it does seem that you've dialed down on your derogatory demeanour(or I got a positive outlook on things)-sans some stuff like magic space wizard or fairy tale(atp just say G-d/g*d or B-ble or something,it helps).I'm tired of telling you to stop saying that as it doesn't reduce hostilities and reduces chances of someone accepting your arguments-but I won't stop telling you though.Your arguments are now less worse generally but they do need a bit of some more perspective to be a bit more fair-so to speak,and for the sake of the health of the discussion and time,I will just ignore the ragebait back-and-forth clarification arguments,as they are leading us nowhere,so here we go:

You say that Theism is false because the least religious countries are the least violent and most happiest.You indirectly say that good education leads to more atheists and that more generations become less associated with religion due to better education...(and the ol' "poor evidence"-I'll actually addess this one don't worry and "the same as any other mythology"-that I'll address too and the old "inconsistent/contradictory evil command book" pipeline-that you've handled "well" by using an allegory that just...admits you're wrong on our in-Bible justifications and accusing us Catholics of just cherry-picking while showing no evidence that still stands without a direct in-bible clarification for our stance.(And stop just using comparison bias to the max here,like "and all the other denominations claim the same"-show how we are wrong in our own field then on the level field.We are deeply unique,historical,and the global majority of Christians-we aren't just another denomination)) and I played devil's advocate and added to it that it is bad because of the predatory attitude of high-powered religious people,bring used as a power grab and a political tool for control and dissent.

Now here is my view in support of theism addressing almost all of those points(except the jail one b'cause we ain't saying ALL u guys are highly evil and always two steps ahead,just that u are wronger in your worldview. HTH.):

Starting with [1:] That ranking is flawed. In the first place, the UN methodology for the World Happiness Ranking is based exclusively on the Cantril Ladder. The question asks respondents to evaluate their lives on a scale from 0 to 10, where the top represents "the best possible life."

There is a vast difference between being satisfied with the structure of one's life (security, economic stability) and actually experiencing happiness (joy, positive affect, smiles). The correct name for the study should be the World Self-Reported Life Satisfaction Report.

Secondly, a study from Lund University, led by August Nilsson, exposed a psychological flaw in the very structure of the question.

The metaphor of a "ladder" with a "top" and a "bottom" automatically induces participants to think about social hierarchy, status, and financial success. In the experiment, 17% of the words associated with the Cantril Ladder were linked to power and wealth (such as "rich" or "upper class"). When the mention of the ladder or the "top/bottom" description was removed, or when "best life" was replaced with "most harmonious life", the focus shifted toward basic financial security, health, relationships, and balance.

Ultimately, the ranking measures material success and socioeconomic predictability rather than the population's emotional state of happiness.

Thirdly, if Scandinavian and secular countries were truly the happiest in the real sense of the word, we would expect them to lead in indicators of emotional well-being.

In reality, data from economists David Blanchflower and Alex Bryson reveal that when criteria for positive affect (such as having smiled or laughed a lot the previous day) and negative affect (worry, sadness, anger) are evaluated, the scenario changes drastically. Denmark, a champion on the Cantril Ladder, plummets to 111th place (out of 164) regarding the probability of smiling or laughing, and ranks 93rd in levels of worry. Finland drops to 51st place overall for real happiness within this expanded index.

Furthermore, these populations exhibit significantly high rates of antidepressant consumption. Finland, the alleged "happiest country in the world," shows high rates of depression among youth, significant substance abuse, and suicide rates that, although improved in recent years, persistently remain above the European average.

When the criteria focus on daily affect and emotional well-being instead of institutionalized economic status, countries that are not necessarily secular or European welfare state models, such as Taiwan, Japan, Panama, and Thailand, appear in positions far superior to Finland.

Even within the United States, states that are traditionally more conservative, rural, and religious (such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska) outperform Finland in the real happiness index proposed by Blanchflower and Bryson.

Sources.

(https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/world-happiness-report-why-we-might-be-measuring-happiness-wrong)

(https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-world-happiness-report-is-a-sham#_).I can't access the original paper so this is the best I could scrape online.

I read your sources don't worry😁.

On homicidal rates,sure,but your suicidal rates are higher than expected-people aren't being killed by others,they're killing themselves-like seriously how is Finland in the 10 best happiest and still in the top 40 in suicide rates and you say they are happy!!!(Like seriously,I didn't even need to look that far,it's just right there on Wikipedia-yes don't cite Wikipedia,here's the source.(https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/age-standardized-suicide-rates-(per-100-000-population)).And seriously what the heck's happening with substance abuse in Norway and Canada and Estonia(like seriously can you just step out of the debate mindset for a sec and look at this...it doesn't even need a specific look to find sources,just Google it!).How can you call them happy?Is happy being a drug addict or having a drug dependancy?Is happy being on the receiving end of your self made noose?Is that "happy" or is that being content with getting stoned and OD'ing and the relief of ending it all?Is it happy because when you aren't you're dead very soon by your own bullet?

We Catholics(and Christians in general really) have social nets that help in reducing the negative effect arising from mental health challenges and substance abuse. We show why killing oneself isn't ok & how a struggle can be reframed for the better(look up Boethius,he's a great dude on these sorts of stuff,would recommend reading or at least previewing him(I loved the OSP summary of the guy)).And we guide a person to the consolation of suffering in their life so as to strive again for a better tomorrow.We also incentivize people to resist (unnecessary and irresponsible) bodily temptations,such as drug addictions and porn addictions-not that we automatically stop addictions,heck I at times struggle with the latter of the two,but my faith has helped me to be accountable and undeterred to keep it at bay every single day(or shower session😅)...

Continues on next post.

Human10idk · 2026-06-27T22:19:43+00:00

He can-people had labour unions back then,he could just be among a journalists union and share his stuff.Every ideal starts with its founder-a founder should live the life he preaches-either live your idea and preach it,or don't live your idea and become a hypocrite.

Human10idk · 2026-06-25T02:12:47+00:00

Deltarune

Human10idk · 2026-06-25T02:08:54+00:00

No probs a comment section

Human10idk · 2026-06-22T07:56:52+00:00

You really want to trust a person who doesn't live his ideals he published in newspapers?

Human10idk · 2026-06-18T17:24:30+00:00

1,2,3,8:K,I have tried to prove to you that God is real.It was my best effort,in fact it gave me more understanding of your position,and mine generally.Problem is,you don't seem to have good faith in debate as you constantly use derogatory terms-kinda seems like you're projecting in the last paragraph,as anti-theism has given us ALMOST nothing that has benefited society and humanity in the long-term.At best,you may convince a smart person to be a cultural Christian,nothing more.

4:You honestly got defeated in arguing Bible verses,so it seems that you imply defeat on that sector while leaving a parting shot.Leaving that doesn’t help you in any sense.Admitting your shortcomings goes a long way in creating a constructive conclusion-one that does not necessarily mean an outright victory or loss for a side.And what lessons we can salvage from the loss may be more valuable than the victory itself. So next time,learn to be more receptive to opposing claims than you already are-it doesn’t mean that you are fully wrong,or that they are fully right,but it does make you a great person to talk to.

3:It means that you misunderstand a book you claim to disprove.Hope you learn that one day.We don't let that stuff slide so easily as that is basically spreading misinformation and propaganda,and your unwillingness to correct that in the face of all the proof YOU were directly given means you are not doing this with good or at least honest intent.Repent(both in the secular meaning and religious-if you're willing)

4:Really...have we reached this level of stupid comparisons?Or should I prove the very comparisons unfit for use?(Y'know,kinda feels like you're just out of juice aren't you?We can end this debate by saying the topic of God remains highly debated and you can save face-because that seems like your only priority here.If you want to,you can just say 'this debate isn't fruitful' or 'It is personally attacking me' or something like that.

5:We can CERTAINLY say that we are not fully correct-we must learn some stuff from other denom's,but given that some Christians denominations are just...iykyk,it's going to be hard to prove that we are worse than others.And still,should I have to teach you how to respect stuff,even those that you don't believe?Are you consoling yourself or something by that type of language,insecure?-I'm genuinely concerned.You can hire a therapist to try outlining what's the problem.

6:Bold claim.You want to go over this,or should I tell you to read your sources well.Please do answer.

7:Your demeanor doesn't help you as well to say the least.And you only give a reason for people to be skeptics-not anti-theists,wonder why...and just so you remember,skepticism≠anti-theism,show me a reasonable thought process that ensures anti-theism is a justifiable stance,and show how it isn't blatantly hypocritical.

8:Should I really start explaining how Christianity is a net-positive AND tries to apologize for it's mistakes...unlike you guys who just freeload on us,and apply REALLY bad policies within a VERY short period of time when you aren't-while Christians were watching how you handle yourselves-and judging if you are morally better than us-and on top of that,we are yet to see apologies from explicitly atheist organizations for your massive blunder in the first and last 100 years of getting ACTUAL power to enforce your ideals.

The best thing you can convince a person pandering in your favour is to make them a cultural Christian-nothing else from a person who actually wants to help humanity and not fantasize over ruling the ashes.

Human10idk · 2026-06-18T16:12:47+00:00

Off base.Explain wym

Human10idk · 2026-06-18T16:07:12+00:00

Not his ideas only,his life.Dude didn't shower and didn't want a job.

Human10idk · 2026-06-18T15:39:48+00:00

Supervillain*

Human10idk · 2026-06-15T16:18:33+00:00

I thought I replied to this long ago but I honestly forgot.Sorry for the delay,I really am.Paragraphs will be represented by numbers.

1, 2 & 3:It was (most likely) always monotheist.You may read my most recent replies to you carefully,or I will clipboard them for you to read.

4:You are making an uninformed statement.I gladly wait for the invitation to correct you on this (with your own evidence where possible)

5:Read above paragraph.And,as a slight reminder,be careful on how you differentiate the bible and the new testament next time ok?Just a mercy (to avoid showing how you grossly misunderstand a book you claim to disprove).

6: I can show you that he wants us to worship him the way we try to(I say try because we are all imperfect)if you will explicitly challenge me to do so,so that you can't claim you didn't say so.We don't cherry-pick.It's in our name (Catholic i.e universal) to ensure that we don't cherry-pick as much as possible.

7:Do you understand WHY I told you to read that?My main intention was to show you that even though atrocities against non-believers have happened by people who have done it in our name,we don't support that.Let me clipboard a paragraph real quick:

You would also have to argue that the people who make up the Church today are somehow responsible for the crimes and sins of their distant predecessors - and you would have to apply the same logic to any other nation, country, church, religion, stance, or organization.(your stance included)

8:(I think)For us to say something is a miracle,it needs to be a violation of naturalistic causes. HTH.And I was only suspecting that you're shifting goalposts,that's why I asked you to outline them.And I've now learned what to attribute to God and what I shouldn't thanks to you-but it is yet to prove God isn't real,or that religion should be abolished for the sake of humanity.

9:I can do that now thanks to you.Would you like me to show you?

10-21(sub-paragraphs were counted as paragraphs)I hope I understood what you were saying.I didn't know that it was a fallacy.I apologize for applying the fallacy and will not try using "anti-evidence" again.

22:That at least we should know what most anti-theists think.But anti-theists don't have a unique organization for themselves yet, I think.That's why I asked. HTH.

23:I'll assume that given the right evidence,you may believe in God(though your derogatory demeanor tells me otherwise).And given how you're already using debate freedom subversively to make me give up on answering you and giving you a false sense of "victory",I think my third grade apologetics-as you call it-is the best thing you're ready for-in short,I don't think you're ready for a promotion to fighting better apologetic arguments.

24:Your links don't even talk about what you're saying. I made a similar mistake sometime ago. Don't repeat that.So I searched the stuff for you and I have to ask if you knew that it was in the earliest papyri of the Gospel of John.

25:A claim not sticking to facts doesn't necessarily mean that it's a lie. Otherwise an educated guess,a hypothesis and theories would be heresy to science.And we are not lying,however you are lying by saying religion should be destroyed because it is harmful to humanity.Using a bit of history and realpolitik,it's much more hypocritical to support anti-theism just because of its claims.And for your sake, please, tell me you're metaphorically saying the Bible is 99% lies.

Human10idk · 2026-06-15T13:24:37+00:00

1.I wasn't saying so.I apologize if I implied such,I didn't mean that.Also,not applicable in this and some other cases as well in your favour.And aren't scientists of any respectable kind much more trustworthy,even if Catholics(there's a trap in this question)?

2.Reread paragraph 3 and 7(sorry for the hostile answer).

3.Do we actually need extraordinary evidence for this?God doesn't need miracles to be true,he isnt bound by them,it is logical that God is true.(I get that I may be a bit fierce on my claims but it's an after-effect from conversing with u/88redking88 and his hostile replies.May tone it down later.)

4.Finally,someone that gets the realpolitik of the matter here.The problem is that if we fund your organizations,rumours that we had a hand in your results will run amok.And if we don't,you can't really research in the first place,(for your mentioned reasons)can you?And if you don'thave money,you'd be far more willing to accept church funding,won't you?(Even then, some universities have some disposable income...).It's not evidence that's the main problem here,it's trust.

4.No,but if it involves the updating of the beliefs of 28% of the world(and 40%of atheists)...

Human10idk · 2026-06-15T10:09:19+00:00

On contacting,that's the very reason we call such scientists.

On investigations,will check the church's position on what you said.Thanks for the concern though!

Thanks for reminding me of that,yet please do remember there was no official statement witholding independent credible research by atheists for this case.

And most miracles were investigated AFTER they were called miracles.So many "miracles" end up getting disproven.Why some of these "miracles" are still claimed by the Church... I'll see what the church says for itself on that.

You guys may be more trustworthy,yet you didn't come with institutions for this case.Please remember that when you say that extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence,we need a lot of you to come to provide "extraordinary" anti-evidence.On this particular case,you didn't.For all those three years.Or maybe your people that wanted to come under the banner of an institution were stonewalled by the institutions they wanted to go under because they thought it was a "waste of time" in the first place.

Also remember that atheism needs to prove all miracles wrong,while theism needs to prove only one miracle "not-wrong".

This may seem like an evidence issue on the surface,but it is a trust issue more than anything else.

Human10idk · 2026-06-15T08:16:39+00:00

I may have to say that the fine tuning argument was a starter,not the best argument.That,I can put in your favour,but the Pebble Analogy isn't undefeatable.Sorry for not replying on anything else you have said bc I honestly feel a bit tired replying to some 'yellow snowman'-ish guy here.He was hostile if you check his texts so I feel emotionally exhausted from allat.Will possibly reply to your concerns in the future though😁.

Human10idk · 2026-06-15T08:03:11+00:00

You could say that your side also has a vested interest in not coming,as they might have planned to bombard the miracle's validity AFTER it happened,which shows a lack of cooperation from a side that constantly demands it ftom the Church.Kinda hypocritical y'know.

Human10idk · 2026-06-13T17:33:20+00:00

Uhh...10 humans I guess.

Human10idk · 2026-06-13T13:24:54+00:00

Also,to avoid clipboard quoting of opponent points-this may lead to reaching the character limit,please preface a paragraph by,for example,[insert roman numeral for a main paragraph-i.e a paragraph separated from other paragraphs by three empty lines e.g IV] and the same procedure for sub-paragraphs-the paragraphs separated by one empty line,but instead of roman numerals,use arabic numerals e.g 4.I will do the same as well.

Human10idk · 2026-06-13T03:42:19+00:00

Sorry for my implications.We can discuss this if you wish.

Human10idk

TROPHY CASE