I think you are denial of your own efforts to maintain your belief system, which of course is a practice. Members of a vast minority have difficulty maintaining their beliefs in a society in which there is mass propagation of a belief system that runs counter to their own. It takes effort to sustain any belief which in such a minority position. It is only natural to have doubt when those around you are of a different belief system. It is natural for the non believer to doubt their non belief, if they are honest with themselves, so to sustain that non belief they have to practice it regularly and continually. Coupled with the underlying trauma unresolved from failure with theism as a child, this time of year is especially difficult for those who don't share the religious "Christmas" spirit. The feelings of alienation from the larger part of society is a genuine malady, which is likely we see the anti religion types become so vocal this time of year. Were you of a peaceful mind and heart on these subjects that had found your way through to opposition to your atheism, there would be no need to constantly rage against the theistic machine. The resident ET atheists overflow with resentment for those with religious belief, so much so that is obvious to any reader of these threads that atheists have their own cross to bear, and let the theists know it with great regularity, great frequency and with great emotional force. There is no practice of acceptance of those with religious belief by the true non believers here, and they are the knee jerk polar opposite of those who try to push their religion onto others. Rarely, if ever do we find the atheist saying "I tried religion, didn't work for me. Maybe it works for others. Just because it wasn't true for me, doesn't mean it isn't true for other."
So should Chris Angel have accepted the beliefs of his exhilerated clients whose tarot cards he read in that video I hyperlinked earlier? Should he have allowed them their magical beliefs based on their desire and ability to connect the dots to make it "real" for themselves? Or should he have said, as he did, that he conned them outright?
Oh, that's the problem. You think I'm religious. Actually, I'm atheist. Thought that'd be apparent. I use "appears" because I've learned not to make emphatic statements about things that are pending and not fully conclusive. I won't say 1+1 appears to be 2. I don't say evolution appears to have happened. And so on and so forth. I also use appears in cases where there's too much polarization. It helps promote dialogue. For instance, when talking about certain social or racial correlations, so as not to come off immediately as offensive and have your point dismissed, I'll say that there appears to be a correlation between this thing and that thing. Often people will acknowlegde the correlation but will try to explain it away. And that's the common ground that breeds dialogue. But if I said something like, "Black people commit disporportionally more crimes than whites" which looks like I'm stating a fact, right away I'll be branded a racist. And it looks like my mind is made up and I'm only looking to run away with that statistic and use it to support a perceived racist view. Likewise with religion. You thought you picked up on theist undertones and replied in a overly questioning and slightly hostile way. Dismissing out of hand something which has been and is currently being researched. Had I been emphatic about evolution's role on the thought processes of humans that lead to religion, you'd probably agree out of hand. But what about the theists? They'd reject it out of hand and there'd be no further discussion. Anyway, don't worry about it. At least now you know where I stand and that should straighten things out going forward.
I just wanted to point out there is degree of certainty/uncertainty in "my" belief system. I live in a real life with uncertainty that I do need a belief system for me to make a reasonable decision in some situations.
Sure, he should accepted those beliefs as long as they were not harming him. His motive was purely commercial, I don't see the same in the resident ET atheists. In any case, comparing Chris Angel and his illusions to belief in God is not an intelligent comparison, as described above. Angel wasn't ever claiming his magic was the work of God. Are there people in religions who act "in the name of God" for selfish and commercial reasons? Sure thing, but it is one thing to expose their commercialism or self interest, and another to denounce those who simply believe in God's love and God's grace. There are selfish commercial people in every field. There are selfish and commercial people in the scientific field, but that doesn't render the field of science as a whole false because of the actions of some scientists.
Good. Now we have the same belief in science. Let me rephrase my question. Assume "Bible is inerrant". Can we scientifically prove that it is wrong? (That is what I call hard evidence.)