Though still an atheist, I believe in miracles—wondrous things that happen for which we can find no scientific explanation.

To believe that things happen for which we can find no scientific explanation is not only not inconsistent with atheism, it's not even anomalous. No atheist, to my knowledge, claims to know the scientific explanation for every event that has been known to happen. Atheism is not a claim to omniscience.

Whether we're justified in calling it a miracle just because we can't explain it is a semantic issue, no more.

Do you see the point I am making? The God these people worship doesn't exist. If it does exist then it would rather help corrupt and sinful adults than little children and therefore is not worthy of being worshipped or even acknowledged as a God.

If a God exists it does NOT heal the sick and injured. It does not intervene in our lives at all.

WAKE UP! You selfish, arrogant, deluded, ignorant SCUM!

"If you think your say-so should be enough to convince me, then I'm sorry"

Again Why should I convince you? Here why I can't
To quote me again:

"Consider this parallel: Someone living in a one-dimensional world, where there can only be points on a line, could not imagine a square. And in a two-dimensional world, where squares exist, a cube would be incomprehensible.
This is the problem of thinking and considering evidence. If a person is a one-dimensional thinker then "proof" is only as good their intellectual limits. If evidence presents itself outside those limits then they are discounted as not possible and assigned to the "not figured out yet" category even if the volume of this evidence is over many thousands. Opposing theories then become real probabilities and allow people the explain away real truth. This is why they are so confounded and why skeptics require only "real" evidence which is only determined by their limits."

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/france/paris-chapel-of-miraculous-medal

So if I, for example, point out to you that at this Church there are two incorrupt bodies of two great saints (meaning that their bodies are not embalmed, they have flexible joints, and the don't smell) and there is the incorrupted heart of another Catholic saint and their is a documented historical evidence of instantaneous headings from an infectious disease epidemic based on a medal the the Mother of God asked them to make you would not doubt say it is not true because it is not possible and/or say it is not true because an explanation has not yet been found. It's so so to you so the beat goes on!

So why should I try to convince you?

That depends on what you think is going to happen to me if I don't change my mind.

It's always the same argument.

It's always the same apologetics.

"It isn't evidence" just because I say it is.

If you think your say-so should be enough to convince me, then I'm sorry, but I've known plenty of people who claim to have plenty of evidence that Roman Catholicism is nothing but a conspiracy and a fraud. I'm not taking their word for it, either.

You are thinking exactly as I described and so it will never be good enough reason for you to believe. So it is discounted thinking and you can say it's not if you must. I've seen real science and scientific commissions discounted this way and explained away just as you are doing. So why should I try to convince you? That's impossible as I explained. It's always the same argument. "It isn't evidence" just because I say it is. And so you use words like claiming and alledged and purported. And the beat goes on!

Because human beings have limited intellects we can not hope to comprehend fully truth, especially the truth of God.

I believe plenty of things that I don't fully comprehend, but I believe them because of evidence.

If evidence presents itself outside those limits then they are discounted as not possible

You can call it discounting if you must, but it isn't evidence just because you say it is. I do not say that miracles are impossible. All I say is that lots of believers claiming that miracles have happened is not a good enough reason for me to believe they have happened.

Because human beings have limited intellects we can not hope to comprehend fully truth, especially the truth of God. Consider this parallel: Someone living in a one-dimensional world, where there can only be points on a line, could not imagine a square. And in a two-dimensional world, where squares exist, a cube would be incomprehensible.
This is the problem of thinking and considering evidence. If a person is a one-dimensional thinker then "proof" is only as good their intellectual limits. If evidence presents itself outside those limits then they are discounted as not possible and assigned to the "not figured out yet" category even if the volume of this evidence is over many thousands. Opposing theories then become real probabilities and allow people the explain away real truth. This is why they are so confounded and why skeptics require only "real" evidence which is only determined by their limits.

Hi Max,
That's a good question. I would first say that it's important to recognize that none of us makes a decision based upon 100% certainty. We make decisions based on a balance of probability realizing that at times our choices may be wrong. When it comes to miracles it's difficult to prove something beyond doubt that does not have a scientific explanation. so there's always going to be a bit of a mystery to a miracle. From a purely scientific perspective i think a decision about whether or not a miracle occurred should be refrained from until all of the facts are evaluated. in my opinion one should approach a potential miracle with a high degree of suspicion but also a willingness to be objective and open to the possibility. Dr.Duffin did that and concluded that a miracle occurred. You'll never be able to be 100% certain that a miracle occurred, but then again, there's almost nothing that you can be 100% certain about.