Freedom of Religion

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Abra;

Shouting,in red, does not make your argument any more convincing.

[Abracadabra]

Abra;

Shouting,in red, does not make your argument any more convincing.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to come across as shouting. I was just trying to give each section a title describing what point I was discussing in each section.

I actually thought about that afterward and realized that I probably should have used dark blue. The red was over-kill, I agree.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could shout these arguments into a bullhorn planted in my ear, or paint them in neon green on the Mona Lisa and I wouldn't give you an ounce of trouble for them...if they were valid arguments that had anything to do with the subject that was being discussed, if it wasn't a long litany of arguments from ignorance in service of a strawman. All truth statements arrived at by scientific inquiry are given provisional certainty, which is to say that as far as we can tell, this is what we know..unless more information becomes available. Arguing that science isn't airtight is pointless, as it does not claim to be. Arguing that whatever you dream up can be used to fill a gap in this less than airtight body of knowledge is an argument from ignorance. If these are the reasons that you feel that magic is compatible with science, you're mistaken. It remains nonsense (which you have every right to believe in, and which I have every right to belittle..lol)

To be blunt, referencing some mystery in an unrelated are, (such as science) does not make your supernatural mystery more plausible. It isn't what we don't know that rules out magic, it's what we do. Magic isn't mysterious in the least bit. It's a very tired and very tried concept that failed and continues to fail to produce results. There's so much information on what sorts of magic people believed in and why that anyone trying to insert mystery is only trying to make it seem plausible by intentionally confusing themselves. It's not even an area where agnosticism can be justified, unless you leave the definition of magic or the supernatural so vague as to mean everything or nothing (which you have), rendering it a meaningless concept from the get go if for no other reason than the lack of specifics.

[Epimethean]

Silly Abra, magic(k) is cool only in D&D and Mindfreak.

[Abracadabra]

Silly Abra, magic(k) is cool only in D&D and Mindfreak.

I really don't care what people think of magic, witchcraft, mysticism or anything else. And in truth I don't even care if they have no respect for me based on that.

I was actually arguing for a moral principle more than for a personal need to be respected. I'm use to people disrespecting me for my spiritual views. Christians do that on a regular basis with no problem. I naively thought that atheists might be more intelligent than the Christians. Or at least have a higher sense of ethics or be more open-minded about respecting people for their beliefs or non-beliefs.

I didn't realize this thread was in the philosophy forum. I just clicked on it because of the subject title. I actually thought it was in the religion forums.

It was never my intent to argue for a 'philosophical basis' for spirit.

I mean, I'll stand by my original position that I don't see anything in science or philosophy that can rule out a spiritual view of life. But I'm certainly not going to argue that people should actually become spiritual because of that.

But at the same time I think it's wrong to spread ideas that spirit has been 'ruled out' or that it is so unreasonable that it should be branded as being utterly ignorant to even consider.

There just isn't enough "evidence" in either science or philosophy to justify a stance claiming that to even consider a spiritual essence of life should be considered to be unreasonable or ignorant.

No one is going to convince me otherwise. At least not without coming up with some new evidence so dramatic that it would be making front-page news if it could be confirmed.

[Epimethean]

Abra, atheists ARE often more intelligent than xtians, which is EXACTLY why they tend to point out the fly in your gazpacho.

You say stuff like this:

"There just isn't enough "evidence" in either science or philosophy to justify a stance claiming that to even consider a spiritual essence of life should be considered to be unreasonable or ignorant."

Even as you condemn other people for having spiritual beliefs. It is inconsistent and contradictory.

[The Grand Nudger]

" I don't see anything in science or philosophy that can rule out a spiritual view of life."

We rarely see what we wish to ignore.......

[Abracadabra]

Even as you condemn other people for having spiritual beliefs. It is inconsistent and contradictory.

You're jumping to false conclusion now.
I don't condemn anyone for having spiritual beliefs.
I argue against the Abrahamic picture of God based entirely on what those fables claim.
My argument there is that the fables are simply far to contradicting to be true.

It's simple, IMHO.
The fables claim to be about a supposedly all-wise, all-benevolent God,
yet the entire way through the whole cannon they have this God behaving like a hateful moron,
and being grossly inconsistent with respect to the character traits that he's supposed to have.
That's why I hold that it can't be true.
No all-wise, all-benevolent, consistent God could be that screwed up.
It's just not possible for a supposedly "all-wise" God to be that stupid.

I don't argue that a personified God could not exist.
Hell's bells even scientists are proposing the possible existence parallel universes.
I'm mean there is increasing support from the scientific community (even if only in esoteric theories)
for places where a personified God could potentially hide out, including hiding an entire heaven, and/or hell.
So I can't argue against it on those grounds.

If the Christians would suddenly confess that their God is stupid, hateful and schizophrenic,
I would no longer have a valid argument of why he couldn't exist.

[Epimethean]

LOL. You jumped the shark there.

[The Grand Nudger]

@ Abra

Yes...lol, you would.