Tao.

O K ,because
the reverse of this --- is arrogance ✳
☮thanks

Also posted this twice.

Medical 'miracles' do not occur, ever. Just because we can't explain something at the time, doesn't make it a 'miracle'.

There is no possibility of a supreme creator, just wishful thinking on the part of those too lazy to take ownership of their bad decisions and misfortunes.

As soon as we rid ourselves of the extreme idiocy of religion, the human race will be in a much better place.

@AtheistInNC I think many of those medical miracles started as a misdiagnosis.

@AtheistInNC I would not say "no possibility" rather than low probability. For example, many years ago a guy placed a £5 bet that Elvis would return from the dead riding Shergar down Londons Mall. Then arrive at Wimbledon and win the men's singles championship. The bookmakers took the bet but had to amend it as they did not have the £25 million to cover it. So he changed it to 5p. I think the probability of God's existence is less than that.

I think the Chinese would disagree. As would historians of world religions, like Joseph Campbell (if he were still alive).

@skado A quick wiki and Chinese written language is at least 6.000 years old. That puts it at the beginning of the world/universe depending on your belief system.

@273kelvin
I’m not talking about that part, but the part about the Divine not sharing its wisdom with them.

@AtheistInNC You might be right about medical miracles but I used it as an example of just plain dumb luck. For instance, I read an article on coincidences and this event happened. A 21yo male decided he was going to end it all by throwing himself under a London Underground train.* As it happens just at that moment 2 teenage boys decided to pull the emergency cord and stop the train. The train stopped literally in the nick of time, so much so that they had to use hydraulic jacks to get him out from underneath. The young man thought better of his decision and London Transport declined to prosecute the teenagers.
Now many would look at that event as some form of divine intervention. I certainly would be loath to tell the young man that it was just dumb luck and he might as well try again another day. But we both know that given x amounts of suicides and y amount of misuse of emergency cords, at some point something like this was very liable to happen.

*Btw if you want to end it because you think the world hates you? Then your ghost will find it true when you stop a commuter train.

@273kelvin
Your example is pretty poor, isn't it?
Elvis, who did exist and has a very, very, very minute chance that he is not dead even after they found him dead in his bathroom - is not a very good comparison to something that never existed, will never exist and is only the creation of men's imaginations ?

@AtheistInNC Firstly you are correct in that there was a chance however slight that Elvis + Shergar were still alive and that the king might win Wimbledon. This is why no matter how improbable the odds, the bookmaker William Hill had to reduce the amount it could take in as a stake by a factor of 100 from £5 to 5p. However, I did say that in my opinion, I think the odds of gods existence were less than that, which is a mistake on my part because mathematically I should've said "greater" as in less probable.
It is next to impossible to prove some negatives like there is no life on Mars. All we can do is assign a probability to there being life there. I cannot prove that hobgoblins, elves and vampires do not exist.* All I can do is assume the chances are so low as to not be significant enough to alter my thinking/behaviour. (except hypothetically in discussions such as this) The odds of me winning the lottery jackpot are huge. The odds of said same increase exponentially by me not buying a ticket. But people win the jackpot nearly every week and is it possible that some kind soul might buy me a winning ticket (god if you're listening) but I'm counting on it to pay my bills.

• I was informed by my daughter's evangelical friend, that she actually DID believe in vampires. I restrained myself from pointing out her delusion and then thought "Okay YOU don't believe in vampires but YOU'RE, not a 25-y-o female virgin"

Only secular humanists believe secular humanism unites all people. When was the last time you saw a devout Baptist or Muslim being united with secular humanism?

@skado If you'd read my comment to the end you'd have realised that you just validated my point. I've even given you a 'like' by way of thanks.

@Gareth
Do you not consider religious people to be people? You said secular humanism unites all people. Did you mean all non-religious people? Religious people comprise approximately 80% of the human population. It is not secular humanism that unites them.

@skado Does the sentence "All people benefit from a good night's sleep" mean that insomniacs aren't people? That's not how the English language works. Your point is equivalent to pointing out that people who don't get a good night's sleep don't benefit from a good night's sleep. Brilliant.

@Gareth
In this comparison, having the ability to sleep is the norm - insomnia the exception, which is the reverse of what we are discussing. In the world, religious belief is the norm - secular humanism the exception.

Biologically and psychologically, especially from an evolutionary perspective, religion's main function has been to promote social cohesion. That is to say, to unite all people. Of course this means all people who find themselves in a given culture. What you see as religious division is the effect of the various cultures growing to the point of touching each other and intermingling. In other words, globalism.

It is science, I believe, rather than secular humanism, that has some potential for uniting these various cultures. The only purpose I can see in secular humanism is to distinguish itself from the majority - in other words, to divide yet again. The fact that a minority of humans can behave well in a secular humanist atmosphere is no indication that a majority will ever be able to. The value of religion is not that it is true, but that it works. It has been tested and refined by evolution to produce social cohesion. The next viable step, it seems to me, is not to abandon what has worked for all of human history and adopt something that has never worked for any whole culture. But rather to allow religion to do what is has always done, which is to evolve to meet the changing needs of human populations.

In our current situation that would mean evolving a global religion. And I can think of no better backbone for that religion than a universal acknowledgement of the dependence on science for the 'what' of reality. But religion also needs to provide, as it always has, a 'how' of living life - a project that science has always, and probably must always eschew.

Science make technology possible. Art makes humanity possible. We are not robots. Yet.

Did you notice the name of the site?

"Most major world religions caution against becoming overly confident that we know God’s nature."

That is not true, the whole point of religion is the claim to know something, religions which made real relativist statements would cease to exists as religions, and become at most deism. At best most religions are only warning against the personal search for truth, in case it presents a challenge to their dogma.

@skado Absolutely something out there? I disagree. There is NOTHING supernatural if that's what you're claiming. There is ZERO planned purpose. Everything in the universe happens in it's own and by random.

@barjoe
Neither I nor the OP mentioned anything about “supernatural”. That is something you brought to the discussion, so I’ll let you take responsibility for that. How many hundred times have you seen me say I don’t believe in anything supernatural? How many more times will it take for you to believe me?

@skado @skado I don't think I've read hundreds of any of your comments ever. That being said, how else is anybody supposed to interpret "No “if” about it. There is obviously something out there."? In a thread for a post where the OP. mentions 'God' with a capital 'G'. I contend in spite of the site being called agnostic it's predominantly an atheist community. If I read your comment wrong, I stand corrected. You're entitled to your belief as I'm entitled to my unadulterated non belief. It's all good.

@barjoe
“…how else is anybody supposed to interpret "No “if” about it. There is obviously something out there."?”

Maybe scientifically?

@skado It's certainly not 'God'.

@barjoe
It's certainly not any word we can say. The map is not the territory. The universe behaves how it will, whether we call it God or Nature or Peanutbutter Pizza. There is a lot more "out there" that we don't know about than what we do know about. There is, by any popular or scientific definition "something" out there. Most of it unknown to us.

@skado Yeah. Lots of stuff. We are insignificant. Just a mere speck on a speck.

@barjoe

Exactly that.

What there is evidence to support is that Humans have a capacity for metaphorical thinking and communicating.

@skado Oh hell yeah!

@BBJong 4000 religions are all bullshit. If someone chooses to believe that bullshit it's their problem.